SARC-F for Screening of Sarcopenia Among Older Adults: A Meta-analysis of Screening Test Accuracy
SARC-F for Screening of Sarcopenia Among Older Adults: A Meta-analysis of Screening Test Accuracy
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jamda.2018.04.001
复制
发表时间：
2018-08-01
影响因子：
7.6
通讯作者：
Murata, Kazuya
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ida, Satoshi;Kaneko, Ryutaro;Murata, Kazuya
目的：通过荟萃分析研究SARC-F对老年人的筛查能力。设计:荟萃分析。环境和参与者：文献综述使用MEDLINE、Cochrane系统综述数据库和ClinicalTrials.gov进行。我们检索了1960年前后撰写的文章，其中包含了关于老年人肌肉减少症的SARC-F诊断标准的敏感性和特异性的数据。测量方法：采用双变量随机效应模型计算敏感性、特异性、阳性似然比（PLR）、阴性似然比（NLR）和诊断优势比（DOR）的汇总估计。综合受试者工作特性曲线用于综合试验性能。结果：7项研究共计12800名受试者符合本研究的资格标准。以欧洲老年人肌肉减少症工作组为参考标准，敏感性、特异性、PLR、NLR和DOR的合并结果分别为0.21[95%可信区间（CI）， 0.13-0.31]、0.90 （95% CI, 0.83-0.94）、2.16 （95% CI, 1.51-3.09）、0.87 （95% CI, 0.80-0.95）和2.47 （95% CI, 1.64-3.74）。总的来说，我们在使用国际肌少症工作组和亚洲肌少症工作组作为参考标准的研究中获得了相似的敏感性和特异性汇总结果。由于很少有研究使用美国国立卫生研究院的参考标准，因此没有进行荟萃分析。结论/意义：虽然SARC-F的筛选敏感性较差，但其特异性较高；因此，它是一个有效的工具，选择谁应该接受进一步的测试，以确认诊断肌肉减少症。(C) 2018 AMDA -急性和长期护理医学学会。
Objective: To examine the screening ability of SARC-F for older adults using a meta-analysis.Design: Meta-analysis.Setting and Participants: The literature review was conducted using MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Articles written on and after 1960 that included data regarding the sensitivity and specificity of SARC-F's diagnostic criteria for sarcopenia in older adults were searched.Measures: The bivariate random effects model was used to calculate the summary estimates of sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). The summary receiver operating characteristic curve was used to summarize the overall test performance.Results: Seven studies involving a total of 12,800 subjects met the eligibility criteria of our study. The pooled results of sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and DOR with the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People as the reference standard were 0.21 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.13-0.31], 0.90 (95% CI, 0.83-0.94), 2.16 (95% CI, 1.51-3.09), 0.87 (95% CI, 0.80-0.95), and 2.47 (95% CI, 1.64-3.74), respectively. Overall, we achieved similar pooled results of sensitivity and specificity for studies using the International Working Group on Sarcopenia and Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia as the reference standards. Because few studies used the Foundation National Institute of Health reference standards, a meta-analysis was not performed.Conclusions/Implications: Although the screening sensitivity performance of SARC-F was poor, its specificity was high; thus, it is an effective tool for selecting subjects who should undergo further testing for confirming a diagnosis of sarcopenia. (C) 2018 AMDA - The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine.