Validated Tools for Screening Sarcopenia: A Scoping Review

• Published in: Journal of the American Medical Directors Association Vol. 24; no. 11; pp. 1645 - 1654
• Main Authors: Lian, Rongna, Jiang, Gengchen, Liu, Qianqian, Shi, Qiling, Luo, Shuyue, Lu, Jing, Yang, Ming
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01-11-2023
• Subjects: biomarkers; evidence mapping; muscle depletion; Muscle wasting; questionnaires; questionnaires; muscle depletion; evidence mapping; Muscle wasting; biomarkers
• ISSN: 1525-8610; 1538-9375
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jamda.2023.06.036

Choosing the optimal sarcopenia screening tool for a specific clinical scenario is challenging. We aimed to summarize all validated sarcopenia screening tools with diagnostic accuracy tested in one or more study populations.
Scoping review.
Hospitals, nursing homes, communities, or health checkups.
We systematically searched 3 databases in April 2022: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL. Two review authors independently performed the study selection and data extraction. The included tools' contents, characteristics, and number of citations were summarized and visualized.
We summarized 102 diagnostic accuracy studies involving 53 screening tools, classified into 7 groups: questionnaires (n = 13); serum biomarkers (n = 10); formulas, algorithms, and models (n = 9); physical ability tests (n = 9); integration tools (n = 7); anthropometric indices (n = 3); and ultrasound or bioimpedance analysis (n = 2). The most commonly used questionnaire was SARC-F (770 citations), followed by SARC-CalF (254 citations) and MSRA-7 (61 citations). Handgrip strength and Ishii score were the most widely used physical performance tests (331 citations) and formulas (294 citations), respectively. Sarcopenia index (based on serum cystatin C and creatinine) and calf circumference were the most commonly used serum biomarkers (123 citations) and anthropometric indexes (127 citations), respectively. Ultrasound was the most commonly used imaging tool for screening sarcopenia (57 citations). The included tools varied significantly in content. Various tools assessed some or all components of sarcopenia with different methods, and others assessed different domains, such as age, body mass index, falls, diet, and even mental health. We also summarized the screening tools that were validated in different clinical settings (hospitals, communities, nursing homes, and health checkups).
More than 50 validated tools are currently available for screening sarcopenia in different clinical settings. The results of this review may help clinicians and researchers in selecting optimal tools for sarcopenia in different clinical scenarios and in developing future tools.