Screening and diagnosis tools for sarcopenia: an overview of systematic reviews

This overview of reviews aims to evaluate the validity of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses on screening and diagnosis tools for sarcopenia. The methodological quality and the quality of the evidence (QOE) were assessed following the AMSTAR-2 tool and the GRADE approach, respectively. Four SRs were evaluated on SARC-F, while 2 focused on its modified versions, employing both qualitative and quantitative analyses. The 4 SRs analyzed 98 overlapping reports, comprising 51 unique index publications and 26 duplicates. The "% overlaps" for this overview was 50.98%, meanwhile the covered area (CA) was 48.04%, and the corrected CA (CCA) was 30.72%, indicating a very high overlap. When SARC-F was used, results from four records showed a pooled sensitivity ranging from 14 to 77% and pooled specificity from 63 to 94% (QOE: very low to moderate). When its modified versions were used, results from two records showed a pooled sensitivity ranging from 19 to 57% and pooled specificity from 79 to 92% (QOE: low to moderate). AMSTAR-2 assessments revealed that only 10.7% critical domains were unmet, demonstrating high methodological rigor and strong confidence in the findings. Compared to SARC-F, its modified versions show improved performance and can be a more desirable screening tool for sarcopenia. A summary table was compiled to aid clinicians by providing a clear comparison of SARC-F and its modified versions based on the available evidence.