Comparative accuracy of five screening tools for sarcopenia in community older adults:a systematic review and a network meta-analysis

3 wed that MRSA-5 had the highest sensitivity (92.27) and SARC-F had the highest specificity (99.81) under the cumulative ranking. Linking evidence

, Wanfang, VIP, and Sinomed up to September 2023.Studies report ing on the accuracy of diagnostic testing for sarcopenia in communi ty-dwelling older adults using one or more of the following sarcope nia screening tools were included: Sarcopenia Simple Five-Item Rati ng Scale (SARC-F), SARC-F combined with calf circumference (SA RC-CalF), SARC-F combined with older adults and BMI (SARC-F+ EBM), Mini sarcopenia risk assessment-5 (MSRA-5), and Mini sarc openia risk assessment-7 (MSRA-7).The reference standard was the Asian Working Group on Sarcopenia (AWGS), the European Worki ng Group on Sarcopenia on Older People (EWGSOP), the Foundati on for National Institutes of Health (FNIH), or the International Wo rking Group on Sarcopenia (IWGS).Random-effects bivariate binom ial model meta-analyses, meta-regressions and a network meta-analy sis were used to estimate the pooled and relative sensitivities and s pecificities.

Introduction
Rosenberg firstly introduced the concept of "sarcopenia" in 198 9 and described it as an age-related loss of muscle mass, muscle st rength and muscle function (Rosenberg, 1997).This condition is asso ciated with adverse outcomes such as falls, functional decline, frailt y, and even death (Cruz-Jentoft and Sayer, 2019).In October 2016, t he World Health Organization officially recognized sarcopenia as an independent clinical condition and included it in the International Cl assification of Diseases ICD-10 codes (Anker et al., 2016).According .to statistics, the number of people suffering from sarcopenia is curr ently as high as 50 million worldwide (Yuan and Larsson, 2023), wi th a prevalence of sarcopenia of around 10-27 percent among healt hy older people aged 60 years and above 2 022).Therefore, there is significant clinical importance in rapidly scr eening, identifying, and intervening for sarcopenia among older adul ts in the community.
Currently, there is no standardized diagnostic criteria for sarcop enia.Various diagnostic criteria have been proposed by different or ganizations such as the Asian Working Group on Sarcopenia (AWG S) (Chen et al., 2020), the European Working Group on Sarcopenia on Older People (EWGSOP) (Cruzjentoft et al., 2010), the Foundatio n for the National Institutes of Health (FNIH) (Lee and David, 2010 ), and the International Working Group on Sarcopenia (IWGS) (Cesa ri et al., 2012).However, these criteria involve complex operations and the use of advanced equipment like CT scans, MRI, X-ray bon e densitometry, and bioelectrical impedance analyzers.As a result, t hey are not suitable for early identification of sarcopenia or large-sc ale screening.It is important to develop a simple yet effective scre ening tool that can enable caregivers to detect sarcopenia in older i ndividuals at an early stage.This would facilitate early diagnosis an d treatment, preventing preclinical changes in sarcopenia and reduci .ng the occurrence of negative consequences.
However, there are more than 10 clinically applied screening t ools for sarcopenia with variable accuracy, and healthcare profession als are troubled by their selection.How to recommend appropriate screening tools to efficiently identify the risk of sarcopenia in the e lderly is a pressing issue in clinical practice.Commonly used screeni ng tools for sarcopenia include the Sarcopenia Five-Item Scale (SA RC-F) (Malmstrom and Morley, 2013), the Sarcopenia Five-Item Co mbined Calf Circumference Scale (SARC-Calf) (Barbosa-Silva et al., 2016), and the Sarcopenia Five-Item Combined Aging and Body M ass Index Scale (SARC-F+EBM) (Kurita et al., 2019).Additionally, t he Mini Sarcopenia Risk Assessment (Rossi et al., 2017) offers a 5-i tem questionnaire (MSRA-5) or a 7-item questionnaire (MSRA-7).A n ideal sarcopenia screening test should have high sensitivity and s pecificity, with a threshold of over 80% to ensure effectiveness.By comparing the effectiveness of individual tests, we can determine th eir relative diagnostic test accuracy.These comparisons can provide valuable insights for clinicians and researchers in selecting the most suitable tests for their specific purposes.It is important to note that no previous systematic reviews comparing the test accuracy of com mon sarcopenia screening tools were found in our research.
To address this research gap, we performed a comprehensive s .ystematic review and network meta-analysis.Our aim was to identif y and compare the diagnostic test accuracy of commonly used sarc openia screening tools in community-dwelling older adults.We spec ifically evaluated these tools against internationally recognized diagn ostic criteria for sarcopenia.

Materials and methods
A protocol for this review was registered in PROSPERO(CRD 42023487209).The conduct and reporting of this systematic review a dhered to the guidelines specified in the Cochrane Handbook for Sy stematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy and the Preferred Re porting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA 2020 Statement) (Page et al., 2021).Additionally, we incorporated pe rtinent components from the Guidelines for Reporting Systematic Re views in Network Meta-Analyses (PRISMA-NMA) (Hutton et al.,20 16) and the Guidelines for Reporting Methodological Quality of Sys tematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) (Shea et al., 2017).

Search strategy
We conducted a comprehensive search of electronic databases, including Pubmed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang Data, VIP, and Sinomed.Each database was search ed from inception to September 30, 2023.The article is based on a ll reported studies on screening for sarcopenia in community-dwellin .g older adults.All database searches were conducted using a combi nation of subject terms and free words.The search terms used wer e: (aged OR elder OR old people) AND (sarcopenia* OR muscle c ontraction OR muscle atrophy OR SARC-F OR SARC-Calf OR SA RC-F+EBM OR MSRA OR Sarcopenia Risk assessment OR Sarcop enia assessment tool OR Screening for Sarcopenia).

Inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria
The inclusion criteria for this study were as follows: (i) the s tudy population consisted of older adults in the community; (ii) the study was a diagnostic study published in English or Chinese; (iii) the diagnostic methods included five commonly used community sar copenia screening scales, namely the Sarcopenia Five-Item Scale (S ARC-F), the Sarcopenia Five-Item Combined Calf Circumference Sc ale (SARC-Calf), and the Sarcopenia Five-Item Combined Aging an d Body Mass Index Scale (SARC-F+EBM).Additionally, the Mini Sarcopenia Risk Assessment offers a 5-item questionnaire (MSRA-5) or a 7-item questionnaire (MSRA-7); (iv) the diagnostic gold standa rd used was AWGS, EWGSOP, FNIH, or IWGS; (v) the outcome i ndicators of interest were sensitivity or specificity.
The exclusion criteria were as follows: (i) literature with incom plete data extraction; (ii) conference abstracts, reviews, dissertations, and other similar publications; (iii) duplicate publications.

Scales
The SARC-F was compiled by Malmstrom (Malmstrom and Mo rley, 2013) in 2013.It is mainly used for community elderly and h ospitalized elderly patients.It is the most widely used tool for scre ening sarcopenia in the elderly.The questionnaire needs to be com pleted under the guidance of medical staff and includes 5 aspects: muscle strength, assisted walking, sitting up, climbing stairs and nu mber of falls.Each item is scored from 0 to 2 points, and the tota l score is from 0 to 10 points.If the score is ≥4 points, sarcopeni a can be initially suspected.
The SARC-CalF adds the calf circumference item compared t o SARC-F.It was originally invented by Brazilian scholar Barbosa-Silva(Barbosa-Silva et al., 2016) and others, and the evaluation met hod is the same as SARC-F.
Kurita (Kurita et al., 2019) developed the SARC-F+EBM, which incorporates the concepts of 'E' (elderly) and 'BMI' (body mass inde x) into the original SARC-F questionnaire.In addition to the SARC -F score, this method takes into consideration whether the patient is 75 years old or above, and whether their BMI is ≤21 kg/m2.For patients below 75 years old, the score remains at 0 points.Howeve r, for patients aged 75 years or older, the score is increased to 10 points.Similarly, if the BMI is ≤21 kg/m2, the score remains at 0 .points, but if the BMI is >21 kg/m2, the score is increased to 10 points.The total score ranges from 0 to 30 points, and a score of ≥12 points indicates a positive result.The evaluation method remai ns the same as for the original SARC-F.
The Mini Sarcopenia Risk Assessment Questionnaire, developed by Rossi (Rossi et al., 2017) in 2017, consists of two versions: MS RA-5 and MSRA-7.MSRA-7 includes factors such as age, physical activity level, number of hospitalizations in the previous year, weig ht loss, regularity of three meals, dairy intake, and protein intake.
A score of ≤30 on MSRA-7 indicates a risk of sarcopenia.On the other hand, MSRA-5 does not include two items: regular meals and dairy intake.A score of ≤45 on MSRA-5 indicates a risk of sarco penia.It is important to note that completing this questionnaire req uires the guidance and assistance of medical staff.

Literature screening and data extraction
The assessment of literature quality and data extraction were c onducted independently by two researchers.Any disagreements were resolved through mutual discussion or arbitration by a third research er.Data extraction of the included literature was performed after ini tial screening and re-screening using the literature management soft ware EndNote X9.The extracted data included information such as the first author, year, country, sample size, age, screening tool, refe .rence gold standard, true positive, false positive, true negative, false negative, sensitivity, and specificity.

Quality assessment
The literature was assessed for quality using the Quality Assess ment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) (Whiting et al., 2011) by two independent researchers.Disagreements between t he researchers were resolved through discussion.The tool evaluates both the risk of bias and clinical applicability.

Statistical methods
The traditional meta-analysis was conducted using Stata (versio n 17.0).Sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative lik elihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and 95% confidence inte rval (CI) were pooled for each literature.Network evidence was vis ualized, consistency tests were performed, and funnel plots were cre ated using the midas command in the metan module.
The Bayesian network Meta-analysis was conducted using the g emtc code package of R (version 4.2.1).The analysis involved 4 c hains, 100,000 iterations, and a step size of 10.The area under the cumulative ranking probability curve (SUCRA) was used to determi ne the best screening tool.The SUCRA value indicated the likeliho od of each screening tool being the best.The sensitivity and specifi city of the screening tools were ranked based on the SUCRA value .
. The odds ratio (OR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were c alculated, and statistical significance was determined when the 95% CI of the OR value did not include 1.

Search results
Fig. 1 shows the details of the study selection process.Out of t he initial 3293 records, we identified 2782 unique studies after rem oving duplicate publications.After a preliminary screening of titles and abstracts, we found 142 articles that were potentially relevant t o the use of the five scale for screening sarcopenia in the elderly.
Following a thorough full-text review, we excluded 120 studies, lea ving us with 22 articles that met our eligibility criteria.It is worth noting that none of the 22 articles included in our analysis were fr om unpublished sources.
. FIGURE1 The flow chart of the search for eligible studies

Study Characteristics
The analysis included a total of 22 studies with a combined sa

Study Quality
The quality evaluation based on QUADAS-2 criteria revealed t hat the overall quality of the included studies was low.Only 2 (Mo et al., 2021, Rossi et al., 2021) studies had a blind design, 10 (Kera et al., 2022, Kim and Won, 2020, Krzymińska-Siemaszko et al., 20 20, Krzymińska-Siemaszko et al., 2020, Li et al., 2020, Piotrowicz et al., 2021, Rossi et al., 2021, Yang et al., 2019, Yang et al., 201 8, Zhou et al., 2022) studies included random or consecutive cases, and 19 studies avoided case-control research designs.17 studies pre determined thresholds, and 7 studies reported the rate of loss to fol low-up.All studies provided comprehensive descriptions of baseline information such as gender and age, ensuring consistency and comp arability.

Mesh Relationship Chart
Among the studies included in the analysis, SARC-F had the l argest sample size, followed by SARC-CalF, MSRA-5, MSRA-7, an d SARC-CalF+EBM.The evidence network diagram is depicted in

Sorting of results
The Table 4

Publication bias
Comparison-corrected funnel plots were used to assess publicati on bias by analyzing sensitivity and specificity.The results indicate that the funnel plot is generally symmetrical, although a few studies fall outside the plot.This suggests the possibility of a small sample effect or publication bias in the included literature.See Fig. 3-4 for more details. .
We conducted a systematic review, meta-analysis, and network meta-analysis of 5 common sarcopenia screening tools in 22 studies involving 15,493 community-dwelling older adults and found that M SRA-5 and SARC-F had the highest diagnostic test sensitivity and Specificity.The sensitivity of MSRA-5 in network meta-analysis was found to be consistent with the values reported in a routine meta-a nalysis of 7 studies.Similarly, the specificity of SARC-F in networ k meta-analysis was consistent with the values reported in a routine meta-analysis of 20 studies.This implies that MSRA-5 is the most s ensitive tool for screening sarcopenia, while SARC-F is the most sp ecific tool for sarcopenia screening.
MSRA, a sarcopenia screening tool proposed by Italian scholar Rossi (Rossi et al., 2017)  hen comparing C-MSRA-7 and C-MSRA-5, it was found that C-MS RA-5 is more suitable for sarcopenia screening.The reason for this analysis could be that the original MSRA-7 scale items were primar ily designed for consumption of dairy products in Western countries , and the nutrition-related items may not be suitable for other count ries.As a result, the MSRA-5, after correcting for this factor, has a wider range of applicability and higher screening sensitivity.How ever, the current application of MSRA in screening sarcopenia amo ng community-dwelling elderly individuals is still relatively limited.
This study has several limitations:(i) It excludes studies on sec ondary sarcopenia, which reduces heterogeneity to some extent, but also limits the universality and comprehensiveness of the evidence.
(ii) Some screening tools have limited studies, weak support, and a certain degree of bias.(iii) The study only includes Chinese and E nglish literature, which may introduce a certain degree of language bias.

Conclusion
This study is the first to utilize Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic efficacy of five commonly used communi ty sarcopenia screening tools in the screening of sarcopenia among elderly individuals living in the community.The findings indicate th at the MSRA-5 questionnaire exhibits higher sensitivity compared to SARC, while the SARC-F scale demonstrates high specificity.Utiliz ing multiple scales for screening can potentially decrease the rate of false positive and false negative results.However, further research i nvolving larger sample sizes, multi-center studies, and high-quality c linical trials is necessary to validate these conclusions.
mple size of 15,493 research subjects.All studies were published w ithin the past five years, and the research areas involved China, Jap an, Italy, Poland, South Korea, Brazil, Singapore, Japan, and Turke y.The age of patients included in the diagnostic test accuracy studie s ranged from 60 to 94 years.The study sample sizes ranged from 73 to 4000.All sarcopenia screening tests are performed in commu nity settings.Additionally, these studies utilized 5 different screenin

Further
verification is necessary by expanding the sample size.The SARC-F scale was introduced by Malmstrom(Malmstrom a ndMorley, 2013) and colleagues in 2013.It primarily relies on pat ients' self-reported characteristics of sarcopenia, such as their percep tion of muscle strength and walking ability.The results may be infl uenced by the subjective life attitudes and psychological factors of t he elderly, resulting in higher specificity but lower sensitivity.Curre ntly, the SARC-F scale is widely recognized and utilized as a simp le, safe, and cost-effective tool for screening sarcopenia.Huang et a l.(Huang and Wang, 2020), Chinese scholars, have translated the sc ale into Chinese for community-dwelling elderly individuals aged ≥6 0 years.Their findings demonstrate that the Chinese version of the SARC-F scale exhibits good reliability and validity, with higher spe .cificity than sensitivity.They suggest that the SARC-F scale can se rve as an initial step in community screening for sarcopenia.Gaspari k et al.(Gasparik et al., 2020) translated SARC-F into the Romania n version and verified it on 80 elderly people from nursing homes and hospitals.The Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.75, the sensiti vity was 0.694, and the specificity was 0.840.Germany's Drey et a l.(Drey et al., 2020) applied the German version of SARC-F to con duct a test on 117 community outpatients.The results showed that the sensitivity of the scale was 0.75 and the specificity was 0.67.The difference in sensitivity and specificity results between the two studies may be caused by differences in the ratio of male to femal e subjects and the source of the groups.Due to the low sensitivity of SARC-F, Voelker et al.(Voelker et al., 2021) do not recommend this questionnaire as a screening tool for sarcopenia.Sarcopenia in community-dwelling elderly individuals is influen ced by multiple factors.Prevention should be prioritized over treatm ent, and accurate and effective screening and assessment are essenti al for prevention.This study reveals that the MSRA-5 screening to ol, although highly sensitive, is rarely used among the elderly in th e community.On the other hand, the SARC-F scale primarily focus es on muscle function rather than muscle mass, resulting in high sp ecificity but poor sensitivity.It may miss some individuals at risk.

.
The SARC-CalF scale, which improves the accuracy of the SARC-F scale, requires the measurement of calf circumference (CC).The cut-off point threshold for predicting muscle mass and calf circumfe rence in the SARC-CalF scale (34cm for men and 33cm for wome n) is determined based on research conducted on Brazilian communi ty-dwelling elderly individuals.However, studies have shown that th e cut-off point of calf circumference can be influenced by factors s uch as gender, age, race, and environment.Therefore, selecting the appropriate cut-off point threshold for calf circumference is crucial i n sarcopenia screening.If the cut-off value is set too low and does not account for gender differences, the SARC-CalF scale may result in a lower prevalence of sarcopenia.When nursing staff conduct co mmunity screening for sarcopenia in the elderly, they should develo p a screening plan that takes into consideration the characteristics o f the SARC-F scale, SARC-CalF scale, and MSRA-5 questionnaire, as well as the specific population being screened.In conclusion, thi s study suggests that an individualized joint screening program shou ld be considered during community sarcopenia screening to minimiz e false positives and false negatives, thereby improving the accurac y of screening and providing a foundation for the prevention and tr eatment of sarcopenia.
tools and each study was compared directly with the gold standar d.Out of the 22 studies, 13 of them compared two or more tools with the gold standard, but there were no direct comparisons betwe en two tools, so separate sets of data were extracted.The most co mmonly used sarcopenia screening tool was SARC-F.Table1prese nts the characteristics of the 22 included studies.TABLE 1 Characteristics of the included studies.