Premium
Validity of Japanese version of SARC‐F questionnaire in patients with chronic liver disease
Author(s) -
Ida Satoshi,
Kojima Yuji,
Hamaoka Shima,
Urawa Naohito,
Araki Jun,
Kaneko Ryutaro,
Murata Kazuya
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
journal of gastroenterology and hepatology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.214
H-Index - 130
eISSN - 1440-1746
pISSN - 0815-9319
DOI - 10.1111/jgh.14449
Subject(s) - medicine , hepatology , chronic liver disease , sarcopenia , convergent validity , rheumatology , gastroenterology , physical therapy , surgery , cirrhosis , patient satisfaction , internal consistency
Background and Aim We aimed to examine the validity of the Japanese version of SARC‐F questionnaire (SARC‐F‐J) that employs the diagnostic criteria for sarcopenia established by the Japan Society of Hepatology in patients with chronic liver disease. Methods Subjects were outpatients at the Department of Hepatology at the Japanese Red Cross Ise Hospital, Japan. Evaluations were performed using the following self‐administered questionnaires: SARC‐F‐J, Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Gerontology Index of Competence (TMIG‐IC), the Japanese version of the Falls Efficacy Scale (FES), and Kaigo–Yobo Checklist (CL). Based on the diagnostic criteria of the Japan Society of Hepatology, we diagnosed sarcopenia from the skeletal muscle index calculated using the iliopsoas muscle area at the third lumbar vertebra on computed tomography and from grip strength. To evaluate construct validity, we calculated the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of SARC‐F‐J that used the diagnostic criteria of the Japan Society of Hepatology as reference. Furthermore, to evaluate convergent validity, we calculated Pearson's correlation coefficients between SARC‐F‐J and TMIG‐IC, FES, and CL. Results A total of 140 subjects were included in the analysis set. Sensitivity and specificity were 16.3% and 45.0% and 95.3% and 90.8% for men and women, respectively. The positive predictive value was 81.8% for both, whereas the negative predictive value was 47.1% and 64.5% for men and women, respectively. A significant correlation was seen between SARC‐F‐J and TMIG‐IC, FES, and CL. Conclusions We believe that the SARC‐F‐J is a valid tool for patients with chronic liver disease.