AIMS To compare the effectiveness of SARC-F, SARC-F EBM, and SARC-Calf in assessing sarcopenia risk in older adults in the community. Secondary objectives include examining the correlation between these tools.
METHODS A health screening was done in Kuala Lumpur in December 2023. Older adults were assessed for sarcopenia risk using the SARC-F, SARC-F EBM and SARC-Calf with thresholds of 4, 12 and 11 or more respectively. The effectiveness for each tool was determined by the frequency of participants with sarcopenia risk. Reduced grip strength was classified as <18 kg for women and <28kg for men. Chi-squared analysis was used to compare the effectiveness of each tool against grip strength.
RESULTS A total of 144 older adults participated in the study. (mean age 65.4 years and 66.7% women). The majority were not frail (93.1%) and had normal nutritional status (79.9%) despite 21.5% having Diabetes. Sarcopenia risk detection rates were 9.7% with SARC-F, 7.6% with SARC-F EBM, and 42.4% with SARC-Calf. None of these tools showed a significant correlation with grip strength in this study; SARC-F (p=0.452, CI=95%), SARC-F EBM (p= 0.346, CI=95%) and SARC-Calf (0.452, CI=95%). However, SARC- Calf followed by grip strength assessment detected more individuals with possible sarcopenia (46.8%) compared with SARC-F (12.5%) and SARC-F EBM (10.6%).
CONCLUSIONS Results were consistent with some studies that demonstrated SARC-Calf offers better sensitivity compared with SARC-F and SARC-F EBM in detecting sarcopenia risk. Therefore, SARC-Calf may be more effective in identifying individuals at risk in our community.