Investigates sarcopenia risk in older adults, highlighting laboratory tests as a useful tool.
Background/aim Sarcopenia screening in primary care is limited by time and workload. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between SARC-F (Strength, Assistance with walking, Rise from a chair, Climb stairs, and Falls)-defined sarcopenia risk and routine laboratory parameters in primary care. Additionally, the study aimed to determine the prevalence of sarcopenia risk, as defined by the SARC-F, in the study population.Materials and methods Data were collected from individuals aged 65 and older (n = 396) registered at two family health centers in İzmir who had complete SARC-F and laboratory data. Sarcopenia risk was defined as a SARC-F score of 4 or higher. Demographic, clinical, and routine laboratory data were obtained from electronic records. Multivariate logistic regression, Pearson chi-square test, and Mann–Whitney U test were used for statistical analysis. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.Results The study included 396 individuals with an average age of 70 ± 6.3 years, of whom 55.1% were female. Sarcopenia risk was present in 16.9% of participants (20.6% in women and 12.3% in men). Multiple logistic regression analyses showed that increased age (OR = 1.250, 95% CI = 1.177–1.327), female sex (OR = 2.284, 95% CI = 1.057–4.934), higher BMI (body mass index) (OR = 1.106, 95% Cl = 1.026–1.193), lower ferritin (OR = 0.992, 95% Cl = 0.985–1.000), and lower albumin (OR = 0.777, 95% Cl = 0.693–0.871) levels were associated with an increased risk of sarcopenia.Conclusion The results of our study indicate that the risk of sarcopenia can be quite a common clinical condition in primary care. When increased clinical demands and limited time hinder the use of tests such as SARC-F, routine laboratory tests may help identify individuals at risk of sarcopenia.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Çifçi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: