Background: We compared the diagnostic performance of the short five-item and full seven-item Mini Sarcopenia Risk Assessment Questionnaire (MSRA-5 and MSRA-7) against the Strength, Assistance walking, Rise from a chair, Climb stairs, and Falls (SARC-F) and SARC-F with calf circumference (SARC-CalF) scales for sarcopenia in healthy community-dwelling older adults. Methods: We conducted a post-hoc cross-sectional secondary data analysis of a prospective cohort study, using data from 230 older adults (mean age 67.2±7.4 years, 92% Chinese, and 73% female) from the “Longitudinal Assessment of Biomarkers for characterization of early Sarcopenia and Osteosarcopenic Obesity in predicting frailty and functional decline in community-dwelling Asian older adults Study” (GeriLABS-2) conducted between December 2017 and March 2019 in Singapore. We performed receiver operating characteristic curve analysis to ascertain the area under the curve (AUC) for sarcopenia diagnosis using the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia 2019 consensus criteria. We applied the Delong method to compare the AUCs of the four instruments. Results: The MSRA-5 and MSRA-7 demonstrated poor diagnostic performance (AUC of 0.511, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.433–0.589 and AUC of 0.526, 95% CI 0.445–0.606, respectively), compared to that in SARC-CalF (AUC of 0.739, 95% CI 0.671–0.808) and SARC-F (AUC of 0.564, 95% CI 0.591–0.636). The SARC-CalF demonstrated significantly superior discriminatory ability compared to that in the SARC-F, MSRA-5, and MSRA-7 (all p<0.01). The MSRA-5 demonstrated lower sensitivity (0.464) and specificity (0.597) than in the SARC-CalF (0.661 and 0.738, respectively), whereas the MSRA-7 had higher specificity (0.887) and lower sensitivity (0.145). Conclusions The poor diagnostic performances of the MSRA-5 and MSRA-7 in our study suggest limitations of self-reported questionnaires for assessing general and dietary risk factors for sarcopenia in healthy and culturally diverse community-dwelling older adults. Studies in different populations are needed to ascertain the utility of the MSRA for the community detection of sarcopenia.

Background: We compared the diagnostic performance of the short five-item and full seven-item Mini Sarcopenia Risk Assessment Questionnaire (MSRA-5 and MSRA-7) against the Strength, Assistance walking, Rise from a chair, Climb stairs, and Falls (SARC-F) and SARC-F with calf circumference (SARC-CalF) scales for sarcopenia in healthy community-dwelling older adults. Methods: We conducted a post-hoc cross-sectional secondary data analysis of a prospective cohort study, using data from 230 older adults (mean age 67.2±7.4 years, 92% Chinese, and 73% female) from the “Longitudinal Assessment of Biomarkers for characterization of early Sarcopenia and Osteosarcopenic Obesity in predicting frailty and functional decline in community-dwelling Asian older adults Study” (GeriLABS-2) conducted between December 2017 and March 2019 in Singapore. We performed receiver operating characteristic curve analysis to ascertain the area under the curve (AUC) for sarcopenia diagnosis using the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia 2019 consensus criteria. We applied the Delong method to compare the AUCs of the four instruments. Results: The MSRA-5 and MSRA-7 demonstrated poor diagnostic performance (AUC of 0.511, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.433–0.589 and AUC of 0.526, 95% CI 0.445–0.606, respectively), compared to that in SARC-CalF (AUC of 0.739, 95% CI 0.671–0.808) and SARC-F (AUC of 0.564, 95% CI 0.591–0.636). The SARC-CalF demonstrated significantly superior discriminatory ability compared to that in the SARC-F, MSRA-5, and MSRA-7 (all p<0.01). The MSRA-5 demonstrated lower sensitivity (0.464) and specificity (0.597) than in the SARC-CalF (0.661 and 0.738, respectively), whereas the MSRA-7 had higher specificity (0.887) and lower sensitivity (0.145). Conclusions The poor diagnostic performances of the MSRA-5 and MSRA-7 in our study suggest limitations of self-reported questionnaires for assessing general and dietary risk factors for sarcopenia in healthy and culturally diverse community-dwelling older adults. Studies in different populations are needed to ascertain the utility of the MSRA for the community detection of sarcopenia.

Background: We compared the diagnostic performance of the short five-item and full seven-item Mini Sarcopenia Risk Assessment Questionnaire (MSRA-5 and MSRA-7) against the Strength, Assistance walking, Rise from a chair, Climb stairs, and Falls (SARC-F) and SARC-F with calf circumference (SARC-CalF) scales for sarcopenia in healthy community-dwelling older adults. Methods: We conducted a post-hoc cross-sectional secondary data analysis of a prospective cohort study, using data from 230 older adults (mean age 67.2±7.4 years, 92% Chinese, and 73% female) from the “Longitudinal Assessment of Biomarkers for characterization of early Sarcopenia and Osteosarcopenic Obesity in predicting frailty and functional decline in community-dwelling Asian older adults Study” (GeriLABS-2) conducted between December 2017 and March 2019 in Singapore. We performed receiver operating characteristic curve analysis to ascertain the area under the curve (AUC) for sarcopenia diagnosis using the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia 2019 consensus criteria. We applied the Delong method to compare the AUCs of the four instruments. Results: The MSRA-5 and MSRA-7 demonstrated poor diagnostic performance (AUC of 0.511, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.433–0.589 and AUC of 0.526, 95% CI 0.445–0.606, respectively), compared to that in SARC-CalF (AUC of 0.739, 95% CI 0.671–0.808) and SARC-F (AUC of 0.564, 95% CI 0.591–0.636). The SARC-CalF demonstrated significantly superior discriminatory ability compared to that in the SARC-F, MSRA-5, and MSRA-7 (all p<0.01). The MSRA-5 demonstrated lower sensitivity (0.464) and specificity (0.597) than in the SARC-CalF (0.661 and 0.738, respectively), whereas the MSRA-7 had higher specificity (0.887) and lower sensitivity (0.145). Conclusions The poor diagnostic performances of the MSRA-5 and MSRA-7 in our study suggest limitations of self-reported questionnaires for assessing general and dietary risk factors for sarcopenia in healthy and culturally diverse community-dwelling older adults. Studies in different populations are needed to ascertain the utility of the MSRA for the community detection of sarcopenia.

Background: We compared the diagnostic performance of the short five-item and full seven-item Mini Sarcopenia Risk Assessment Questionnaire (MSRA-5 and MSRA-7) against the Strength, Assistance walking, Rise from a chair, Climb stairs, and Falls (SARC-F) and SARC-F with calf circumference (SARC-CalF) scales for sarcopenia in healthy community-dwelling older adults. Methods: We conducted a post-hoc cross-sectional secondary data analysis of a prospective cohort study, using data from 230 older adults (mean age 67.2±7.4 years, 92% Chinese, and 73% female) from the “Longitudinal Assessment of Biomarkers for characterization of early Sarcopenia and Osteosarcopenic Obesity in predicting frailty and functional decline in community-dwelling Asian older adults Study” (GeriLABS-2) conducted between December 2017 and March 2019 in Singapore. We performed receiver operating characteristic curve analysis to ascertain the area under the curve (AUC) for sarcopenia diagnosis using the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia 2019 consensus criteria. We applied the Delong method to compare the AUCs of the four instruments. Results: The MSRA-5 and MSRA-7 demonstrated poor diagnostic performance (AUC of 0.511, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.433–0.589 and AUC of 0.526, 95% CI 0.445–0.606, respectively), compared to that in SARC-CalF (AUC of 0.739, 95% CI 0.671–0.808) and SARC-F (AUC of 0.564, 95% CI 0.591–0.636). The SARC-CalF demonstrated significantly superior discriminatory ability compared to that in the SARC-F, MSRA-5, and MSRA-7 (all p<0.01). The MSRA-5 demonstrated lower sensitivity (0.464) and specificity (0.597) than in the SARC-CalF (0.661 and 0.738, respectively), whereas the MSRA-7 had higher specificity (0.887) and lower sensitivity (0.145). Conclusions The poor diagnostic performances of the MSRA-5 and MSRA-7 in our study suggest limitations of self-reported questionnaires for assessing general and dietary risk factors for sarcopenia in healthy and culturally diverse community-dwelling older adults. Studies in different populations are needed to ascertain the utility of the MSRA for the community detection of sarcopenia.

INTRODUCTION: There are limited studies exploring functional improvement in relation to characteristics of patients who, following acute hospital care, receive inpatient rehabilitation in community hospitals. We evaluated the association of acute hospital admission-related factors with functional improvement on community hospital discharge. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among patients who were transferred to community hospitals within 14-day post-discharge from acute hospital between 2016 and 2018. Modified Barthel Index (MBI) on a 100-point ordinal scale was used to assess functional status on admission to and discharge from the community hospital. We categorised MBI into 6 bands: 0-24, 25-49, 50-74, 75-90, 91-99 and 100. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to determine factors associated with categorical improvement in functional status, defined as an increase in at least one MBI band between admission and discharge. RESULTS: A total of 5,641 patients (median age 77 years, interquartile range 69-84; 44.2% men) were included for analysis. After adjusting for potential confounders, factors associated with functional improvement were younger age, a higher MBI on admission, and musculoskeletal diagnosis for the acute hospital admission episode. In contrast, a history of dementia or stroke; lower estimated glomerular filtration rate; abnormal serum albumin or anaemia measured during the acute hospital episode; and diagnoses of stroke, cardiac disease, malignancy, falls or pneumonia; and other chronic respiratory diseases were associated with lower odds of functional improvement. CONCLUSION Clinicians may want to take into account the presence of these high-risk factors in their patients when planning rehabilitation programmes, in order to maximise the likelihood of functional improvement.
Aftercare ; Aged ; Female ; Hospitals, Community ; Humans ; Inpatients ; Male ; Patient Discharge ; Retrospective Studies ; Stroke/complications* ; Stroke Rehabilitation

Background/Aims: Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is closely associated with diabetes. The cumulative impact of both diseases synergistically increases risk of adverse events. However, present population analysis is predominantly conducted with reference to non-NAFLD individuals and has not yet examined the impact of prediabetes. Hence, we sought to conduct a retrospective analysis on the impact of diabetic status in NAFLD patients, referencing non-diabetic NAFLD individuals. Methods: Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999–2018 was used. Hepatic steatosis was defined with United States Fatty Liver Index (US-FLI) and FLI at a cut-off of 30 and 60 respectively, in absence of substantial alcohol use. A multivariate generalized linear model was used for risk ratios of binary outcomes while survival analysis was conducted with Cox regression and Fine Gray model for competing risk. Results: Of 32,234 patients, 28.92% were identified to have NAFLD. 36.04%, 38.32% and 25.63% were non-diabetic, prediabetic and diabetic respectively. Diabetic NAFLD significantly increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), stroke, chronic kidney disease, all-cause and CVD mortality compared to non-diabetic NAFLD. However, prediabetic NAFLD only significantly increased the risk of CVD and did not result in a higher risk of mortality. Conclusions Given the increased risk of adverse outcomes, this study highlights the importance of regular diabetes screening in NAFLD and adoption of prompt lifestyle modifications to reduce disease progression. Facing high cardiovascular burden, prediabetic and diabetic NAFLD individuals can benefit from early cardiovascular referrals to reduce risk of CVD events and mortality.