Hiring in life sciences? Share your open positions with our professional community. Read more Close

Advertisement

Screening on the Paretic Side is Superior for Detecting Possible Sarcopenia in Individuals After Chronic Stroke: Preliminary Findings.

Created on 29 Jun 2026

Authors

Ana Luiza M de Oliveira, Ana Carolina J Galvão, Maria Clara F de Oliveira, Lavínia P Dos Santos, Amanda A O Leopoldino, Janaine C Polese

Published in

Neurology and therapy. Jun 28, 2026. Epub Jun 28, 2026.

Abstract

The onset of stroke can lead to structural muscle changes, such as stroke-related sarcopenia. The screening of sarcopenia can be accomplished by the SARC-CalF questionnaire, which includes the measurement of calf circumference. However, there is a lack of evidence on whether calf circumference should be assessed in the paretic or non-paretic limb. Thus, this study aimed to investigate the difference between sarcopenia screening on the paretic and non-paretic sides in individuals after chronic stroke.
Cross-sectional study that included individuals after chronic stroke. Sarcopenia was assessed by the SARC-CalF instrument. The calf circumference measurement was performed in both limbs. The Pearson chi-square analysis was used to determine whether the observed frequencies differed from the expected frequencies.
Sixty-two individuals after stroke were included. The average calf circumference value differed from 1 cm between the paretic limb to the non-paretic limb. In the paretic limb, 31% of the sample was screened as sarcopenic and only 18% in the non-paretic limb, with a statistically significant difference (χ2 = 31.2; p < 0.001) CONCLUSION: The results of this study highlight the importance of sarcopenia screening on the paretic side in individuals after stroke to identify a larger number of individuals with probable stroke-related sarcopenia.

PMID:
42366329
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 29 Jun 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Advertisement

Stats

  • Community rating n/a 0 votes
  • Reviewers' rating n/a 0 votes
  • Your rating

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

  • Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
  • Views 3
  • Comments 0

Recommended by

  • No recommendations yet.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.

Advertisement