JMIRx Medxmed34JMIRx MedJMIRx Med2563-6316JMIR PublicationsToronto, Canadav6i1e7855210.2196/78552Peer-Review ReportPeer Review of “Assessment of SARC-F Sensitivity for Probable Sarcopenia Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults: Cross-Sectional Questionnaire Study”AnonymousSchwartzAmy202525720256e785520406202504062025© Anonymous. Originally published in JMIRx Med (https://med.jmirx.org), 25.7.2025. 2025

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIRx Med, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://med.jmirx.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.10.31.23297840v2https://med.jmirx.org/2025/1/e77497https://med.jmirx.org/2025/1/e54475sarcopenianeuromuscularscreeningcommunityscalemeasurequestionnairesdiagnosisgerontologyolder adultsmuscular

This is the peer-review report for “Assessment of SARC-F Sensitivity for Probable Sarcopenia Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults: Cross-Sectional Questionnaire Study.”

Round 1 ReviewGeneral Comments

The authors [1] present an intriguing and clinically valuable finding through their receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, suggesting that a SARC-F (strength, assistance with walking, rising from a chair, climbing stairs, and falls) score of ≥2 may serve as a new cutoff value for screening probable sarcopenia. This conclusion has significant potential for improving clinical practice by enhancing early detection.

However, the study is based on a relatively small sample size of 204 community-dwelling older adults, and it is unclear if the data were collected from a single center. This limitation raises concerns about the generalizability of the findings to a broader population. I believe the authors could strengthen their argument by conducting additional analyses to address these limitations and provide more robust evidence.

Major Comments

Introduction: Add a discussion on current research gaps (eg, sarcopenia screening) and clearly explain how your study addresses these gaps.

Methods: Include additional clinical outcomes such as muscle function, sarcopenia-related symptoms, or quality of life, and compare how thresholds of ≥2 and ≥4 perform in relation to these outcomes.

Results: Provide more detailed basic characteristics of participants and compare these between thresholds of ≥2 and ≥4, referring to Malmstrom et al [2] for guidance.

Discussion: Update the Discussion to integrate insights from the new results, focusing on the implications of the revised threshold for clinical practice and your limitations.

Round 2 Review

Thank you for your revisions. I understand that due to the lack of relevant data, you were unable to expand your data analysis. I am pleased to see the addition of Tables 3 and 4 for the subgroup analysis; however, these two tables could be combined. Additionally, you may consider placing the ROC curves from Figures 1 and 2 into a single figure. Using software like MedCalc or SPSS to compare the areas under the different ROC curves would add more depth to the Results section.

None declared.

AbbreviationsROC

receiver operating characteristic

SARC-F

strength, assistance with walking, rising from a chair, climbing stairs, and falls

ReferencesPropstD BiscardiL DornemannT Assessment of SARC-F sensitivity for probable sarcopenia among community-dwelling older adults: cross-sectional questionnaire studyJMIRx Med20256e5447510.2196/54475MalmstromTK MillerDK SimonsickEM FerrucciL MorleyJE SARC-F: a symptom score to predict persons with sarcopenia at risk for poor functional outcomesJ Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle20160371283610.1002/jcsm.1204827066316