Development of preliminary scales for elderly sarcopenia based on Delphi method

doi:10.16138/j.1673-6087.2022.03.012

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective To develop the preliminary scales suitable to the comprehensive assessment scale for elderly sarcopenia in China (including self-evaluation and evaluation from others). Methods Through searching and reviewing literatures, the scales related to sarcopenia were selected and a preliminary item pool was formed. The items were screened through two rounds of Delphi consultation questionnaires completed by 16 domestic experts in related fields. Through analyzing the expert positive coefficient, expert authority level, coordination coefficient of the importance of expert opinions, average value of each index score, coefficient of variation and the full score rate, the preliminary scales for evaluating sarcopenia in the elderly were developed. Results After literature collection and expert discussion, the initial item pools of self-assessment (3 first-level items, 5 second-level items, 21 third-level items) and assessment from others (2 first-level items, 4 second-level items and 17 third-level items) were developed. The expert positive coefficient in the first round of Delphi consultation was 100%, and the coefficient of expert authority was Cr=0.956. In the self-evaluation and evaluation from others, the Kendall coordination coefficients of the importance of experts to all items were 0.424 and 0.449, and χ² were 133.534 (P<0.001) and 114.591 (P<0.001), respectively. The positive coefficient of expert in second round of Delphi consultation was 100%, and the authority coefficient of expert was Cr=0.968. In self-evaluation and evaluation from others, the Kendall coordination coefficients of the importance of experts to all items were 0.350 and 0.400, and χ² are 84.119 (P<0.001) and 67.546 (P<0.001), respectively. According to two rounds scores of Delphi consultation and the expert opinions of modification, the item pools of self-assessment (3 first-level items, 5 second-level items and 10 third-level items) and assessment from others(2 first-level items, 4 second-level items and 13 three-level items) were finally formed. Conclusions The preliminary scales for comprehensive assessment of elderly sarcopenia developed through Delphi expert consultation method involved active participation of experts, and presented high level of expert authority, and well concentrated and coordinated opinions from experts.

Key words: Delphi method, Aged, Sarcopenia, Assessment, Questionnaire

CLC Number:

R592

LI Feika, YANG Wenli, JIANG Qianwen, FANG Fang, BAI Tingting, XU Gang, WU Fang, HE Qing. Development of preliminary scales for elderly sarcopenia based on Delphi method[J]. Journal of Internal Medicine Concepts & Practice, 2022, 17(03): 238-242.

Figures/Tables 6

References 16

[1]	Rosenberg IH. Sarcopenia: origins and clinical relevance[J]. J Nutr, 1997, 5 Suppl: 990S-991S.
[2]	刘娟, 丁清清, 周白瑜, 等. 中国老年人肌少症诊疗专家共识(2021)[J]. 中华老年医学杂志, 2021, 40(8): 943-952.
[3]	Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Bahat G, Bauer J, et al. Sarcopenia: revised European consensus on definition and diagnosis[J]. Age Ageing, 2019, 48(1): 16-31. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afy169 pmid: 30312372
[4]	Shafiee G, Keshtkar A, Soltani A, et al. Prevalence of sarcopenia in the world: a systematic review and meta- analysis of general population studies[J]. J Diabetes Meta Disord, 2017, 16: 21.
[5]	Malmstrom TK, Morley JE. SARC-F: a simple questionnaire to rapidly diagnose sarcopenia[J]. J Am MedDir Assoc, 2013, 14(8): 531-532.
[6]	Woo J, Leung J, Morley JE. Validating the SARC-F: a suitable community screening tool for sarcopenia?[J]. JAm Med Dir Assoc, 2014, 15(9): 630-634.
[7]	Kemmler W, Sieber C, Freiberger E, et al. The SARC-F questionnaire: diagnostic overlap with established sarcopenia definitions in older German men with Sarcopenia[J]. Gerontology, 2017, 63(5): 411-416. doi: 10.1159/000477935 URL
[8]	Kim S, Kim M, Won CW. Validation of the Korean version of the SARC-F questionnaire to assess sarcopenia: Korean frailty and aging cohort study[J]. J Am Med Dir Assoc, 2018, 19(1): 40-45. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2017.07.006 URL
[9]	Ida S, Murata K, Nakadachi D, et al. Development of a Japanese version of the SARC-F for diabetic patients: an examination of reliability and validity[J]. Aging Clin Exp Res, 2017, 29(5): 935-942. doi: 10.1007/s40520-016-0668-5 URL
[10]	Malmstrom TK, Miller DK, Simonsick EM, et al. SARC-F: a symptom score to predict persons with sarcopenia at risk for poor functional outcomes[J]. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle, 2016, 7(1): 28-36. doi: 10.1002/jcsm.12048 pmid: 27066316
[11]	Parra-Rodríguez L, Szlejf C, García-González AI, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Spanish-language version of the SARC-F to assess sarcopenia in Mexican community-dwelling older adults[J]. J Am Med Dir Assoc, 2016, 17(12): 1142-1146. doi: S1525-8610(16)30423-6 pmid: 27815111
[12]	Liu X, Hou L, Xia X, et al. Prevalence of sarcopenia in multi ethnics adults and the association with cognitive impairment: findings from West-China health and aging trend study[J]. BMC Geriatr, 2020, 20(1): 63. doi: 10.1186/s12877-020-1468-5 URL
[13]	McLeod M, Breen L, Hamilton DL, et al. Live strong and prosper: the importance of skeletal muscle strength for healthy ageing[J]. Biogerontology, 2016, 17(3): 497-510. doi: 10.1007/s10522-015-9631-7 URL
[14]	Beaudart C, Rolland Y, Cruz-Jentoft AJ, et al. Assessment of muscle function and physical performance in daily clinical practice: a position paper endorsed by the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases(ESCEO)[J]. Calcif Tissue Int, 2019, 105(1): 1-14. doi: 10.1007/s00223-019-00545-w URL
[15]	Chang SF, Yang RS, Lin TC, et al. The discrimination of using the short physical performance battery to screen frailty for community-dwelling elderly people[J]. J Nurs Scholarsh, 2014, 46(3): 207-215. doi: 10.1111/jnu.12068 URL
[16]	Jung HW, Jin T, Baek JY, et al. Functional age predicted by electronic short physical performance battery can detect frailty status in older adults[J]. Clin Interv Aging, 2020, 15: 2175-2182. doi: 10.2147/CIA.S280542 URL

项目	最低分	最高分	平均分	标准差	变异系数（%）	满分比例（%）
自评Q1	4	5	4.88	0.342	7.01	87.5
自评Q2	3	5	4.13	0.806	19.52	37.5
自评Q3	3	5	4.00	0.632	15.80	18.8
自评Q4	2	5	4.44	0.892	20.09	62.5
自评Q5	2	5	4.13	1.025	24.82	43.8
自评Q6	2	5	4.38	0.806	18.40	50.0
自评Q7	3	5	4.06	0.680	16.75	25.0
自评Q8	1	5	3.81	1.047	27.48	25.0
自评Q9	1	5	3.75	1.183	31.55	31.3
自评Q10	3	5	4.38	0.806	18.40	56.3
自评Q11	1	5	4.13	1.258	30.46	56.3
自评Q12	3	5	4.75	0.577	12.15	81.3
自评Q13	1	5	3.94	1.063	26.98	31.3
自评Q14	1	5	3.94	1.063	26.98	31.3
自评Q15	3	5	4.75	0.577	12.15	81.3
自评Q16	1	5	3.56	1.263	35.48	31.3
自评Q17	1	5	3.56	1.153	32.39	25.0
自评Q18	1	5	3.44	1.031	29.97	18.8
自评Q19	3	5	4.31	0.793	18.40	50.0
自评Q20	1	5	4.19	1.167	27.85	56.3
自评Q21	1	5	3.63	1.360	37.47	31.3
合计	1	5	4.103	0.930	23.337	44.376

项目	最低分	最高分	平均分	标准差	变异系数（%）	满分比例（%）
他评Q1	1	5	4.25	1.065	25.06	50.0
他评Q2	4	5	4.63	0.500	10.80	62.5
他评Q3	4	5	4.69	0.479	10.21	68.8
他评Q4	4	5	4.63	0.500	10.80	62.5
他评Q5	1	5	4.19	0.981	23.41	37.5
他评Q6	4	5	4.69	0.479	10.21	68.8
他评Q7	1	5	4.19	1.109	26.47	50.0
他评Q8	1	5	4.19	1.109	26.47	50.0
他评Q9	1	5	4.19	1.047	24.99	43.8
他评Q10	1	5	4.06	1.063	26.18	37.5
他评Q11	1	5	4.38	1.088	24.84	62.5
他评Q12	1	5	4.19	1.047	24.99	43.8
他评Q13	1	5	3.88	1.204	31.03	37.5
他评Q14	1	5	4.50	1.095	24.33	75.0
他评Q15	1	5	4.31	1.138	26.40	62.5
他评Q16	1	5	4.19	1.109	26.47	50.0
他评Q17	1	5	4.00	1.155	28.88	43.8
合计	1	5	4.304	0.951	22.444	53.324

项目	最低分	最高分	平均分	标准差	变异系数（%）	满分比例（%）
自评Q1	3	5	4.88	0.500	10.25	93.8
自评Q2	2	5	4.25	0.931	21.91	50.0
自评Q4	3	5	4.63	0.806	17.41	81.3
自评Q5	3	5	4.13	0.885	21.43	43.8
自评Q6	3	5	4.31	0.873	20.26	56.3
自评Q7	3	5	4.44	0.727	16.37	56.3
自评Q8	2	5	3.69	0.946	25.64	18.8
自评Q9	2	5	4.31	1.014	23.53	62.5
自评Q10	3	5	4.44	0.629	14.17	50.0
自评Q11	3	5	4.56	0.629	13.79	62.5
自评Q12	4	5	4.88	0.342	7.01	87.5
自评Q13	3	5	4.25	0.856	20.14	50.0
自评Q14	3	5	4.12	0.806	19.56	37.5
自评Q15	3	5	4.75	0.577	12.15	81.3
自评Q19	2	5	4.31	0.873	20.26	50.0
自评Q20	3	5	4.69	0.602	12.84	75.0
合计	2	5	4.415	0.750	17.293	59.788

项目	最低分	最高分	平均分	标准差	变异系数（%）	满分比例（%）
他评Q1	3	5	4.64	0.745	16.06	78.6
他评Q2	3	5	4.43	0.938	21.17	71.4
他评Q3	3	5	4.50	0.650	14.44	57.1
他评Q4	3	5	4.57	0.756	16.54	71.4
他评Q6	4	5	4.93	0.267	5.42	92.9
他评Q7	3	5	4.29	0.825	19.23	50.0
他评Q8	2	5	3.93	1.207	30.71	42.9
他评Q9	2	5	4.21	1.051	24.96	57.1
他评Q11	2	5	4.71	0.825	17.52	85.7
他评Q12	3	5	4.43	0.646	14.58	50.0
他评Q14	3	5	4.79	0.579	12.09	85.7
他评Q15	3	5	4.64	0.745	16.06	78.6
他评Q16	3	5	4.43	0.756	17.07	57.1
合计	2	5	4.500	0.768	17.373	67.577