Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21475693›Full record

ArticleJournal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle2010

Skeletal muscle wasting in cachexia and sarcopenia: molecular pathophysiology and impact of exercise training.

Karsten Lenk, Gerhard Schuler, Volker Adams

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 119 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
119citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
9.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

119 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 495 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Effects ofPharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

59 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Karsten LenkDepartment of Cardiology, University Leipzig-Heart Center Leipzig, Strümpellstrasse 39, 04289 Leipzig, Germany.
Gerhard Schuler
Volker Adams

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Skeletal muscle is the most abundant tissue in the human body, and the maintenance of its mass is essential to ensure basic function as locomotion, strength and respiration. The decision to synthesize or to break down skeletal muscle proteins is regulated by a network of signaling pathways that transmit external stimuli to intracellular factors regulating gene transcription. The tightly regulated balance of muscle protein breakdown and synthesis is disturbed in several distinct myopathies, but also in two pathologies: sarcopenia and cachexia. In recent years, it became evident that in these two muscle wasting disorders specific regulating molecules are increased in expression (e.g. members of the ubiquitin-proteasome system, myostatin, apoptosis inducing factors), whereas other factors (e.g. insulin-like growth factor 1) are down-regulated. So far, not many treatment options to fight the muscle loss are available. One of the most promising approaches is exercise training that, due to its multifactorial effects, can act on several signaling pathways. Therefore, this review will concentrate on specific alterations discussed in the current literature that are present in the skeletal muscle of both muscle wasting disorders. In addition, we will focus on exercise training as an intervention strategy.

Identifiers

PMID21475693
PMCPMC3060644
OpenAlexW2085548226

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.