SARC-F score compared with hand grip strength for screening possible sarcopaenia among community-dwelling older adults: A multi-centre cross-sectional study in Malaysia

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Sarcopaenia is underdiagnosed in primary care due to limitations in available tools. The SARC-F questionnaire is a recommended screening tool, but its diagnostic accuracy among Malaysian community-dwelling older adults is not well established. This study aimed to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the SARC-F score against hand grip strength (HGS) for identifying possible sarcopaenia among community-dwelling older adults.
Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted from January to November 2024 across 11 public health clinics. Community-dwelling older adults aged ≥60 years were recruited. Sarcopaenia risk was assessed using the SARC-F questionnaire, with scores of ≥4 indicating a high risk. HGS was measured using a Jamar dynamometer, with possible sarcopaenia defined according to the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia 2019 criteria (<28 kg for men, <18 kg for women). Statistical analysis included the Mann–Whitney U test to compare mean rank distributions of HGS between SARC-F risk groups and Cohen’s kappa to assess the agreement between the SARC-F score- and HGS-based classifications. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to evaluate the discriminatory performance of the SARC-F score in identifying possible sarcopaenia, using HGS as the reference standard.
Results: Among 578 participants, the median HGS was significantly lower in the high-risk SARC-F group for both men (19.0 kg vs 28.0 kg, P<0.001) and women (14.0 kg vs 18.0 kg, P<0.001). The agreement between the SARC-F score- and HGS-based classifications was poor to fair (kappa=0.219). The SARC-F score demonstrated low sensitivity (34.7%) but high specificity (87.5%); it showed poor discriminative ability in detecting possible sarcopaenia (area under the ROC curve=0.67; 95% confidence interval=0.622–0.710; P<0.001). The positive predictive value was 74.6%; negative predictive value, 55.9%; and overall accuracy, 60.4%.
Conclusion: While a high SARC-F score is significantly associated with low HGS, the low sensitivity of the SARC-F score limits its use as a standalone screening tool in primary care. A two-step approach, using the SARC-F questionnaire followed by objective HGS measurement, may enhance early detection efforts in primary care.