Health Outcomes of Sarcopenia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

By C. Beaudart, Myriam Zaaria, F. Pasleau, J. Reginster, O. Bruyère. PLoS ONE, 2017

1,108 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Objective The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review to assess the short-, middle- and long-term consequences of sarcopenia. Methods Prospective studies assessing the consequences of sarcopenia were searched across different electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EBM Reviews ACP Journal Club, EBM Reviews DARE and AMED). Only studies that used the definition of the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People to diagnose sarcopenia were included. Study selection and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers. For outcomes reported by three or more studies, a meta-analysis was performed. The study results are expressed as odds ratios (OR) with 95% CI. Results Of the 772 references identified through the database search, 17 were included in this systematic review. The number of participants in the included studies ranged from 99 to 6658, and the duration of follow-up varied from 3 months to 9.8 years. Eleven out of 12 studies assessed the impact of sarcopenia on mortality. The results showed a higher rate of mortality among sarcopenic subjects (pooled OR of 3.596 (95% CI 2.96–4.37)). The effect was higher in people aged 79 years or older compared with younger subjects (p = 0.02). Sarcopenia is also associated with functional decline (pooled OR of 6 studies 3.03 (95% CI 1.80–5.12)), a higher rate of falls (2/2 studies found a significant association) and a higher incidence of hospitalizations (1/1 study). The impact of sarcopenia on the incidence of fractures and the length of hospital stay was less clear (only 1/2 studies showed an association for both outcomes). Conclusion Sarcopenia is associated with several harmful outcomes, making this geriatric syndrome a real public health burden.

Subfields: Geriatrics and Gerontology, Physiology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b11bc0fa7d3ce64c8b48524c6fc68f187aa255c2

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

  1. Vivien K Pham
  2. M. Trappenburg
  3. W. Lim
  4. A. Maier
  5. C. Meskers
  6. E. Reijnierse
  7. S. Yeung

Citations in the corpus