Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29224698›Full record

ReviewBest practice & research. Clinical rheumatology2017

Sarcopenia.

Nicholas Fuggle, Sarah Shaw, Elaine Dennison, Cyrus Cooper

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Best practice & research. Clinical rheumatology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. CT-defined sarcopenia as a predictor of early mortality following hip fracture: a retrospective cohort study.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors.

Nicholas FuggleMRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, Tremona Road, Southampton, UK. Electronic address: nrf@mrc.soton.ac.uk.
Sarah ShawMRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, Tremona Road, Southampton, UK. Electronic address: ss@mrc.soton.ac.uk.
Elaine DennisonMRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, Tremona Road, Southampton, UK. Electronic address: emd@mrc.soton.ac.uk.
Cyrus CooperMRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, Tremona Road, Southampton, UK. Electronic address: cc@mrc.soton.ac.uk.

Funding

Medical Research Council G0400491Medical Research Council MC_U147585819Medical Research Council MC_U147585824Medical Research Council MC_U147585827Medical Research Council MC_UP_A620_1014Medical Research Council MC_UP_A620_1015Medical Research Council MC_UU_12011/1Medical Research Council MC_UU_12011/2Versus Arthritis 19583
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sarcopenia is a condition that is characterized by loss of muscle mass, muscle strength and muscle functional impairment with ageing. The definition of sarcopenia has been through various permutations; however, an enormous recent breakthrough is the inclusion of the condition in the ICD-10 classification of diseases. This chapter covers the background issues regarding definition before describing the epidemiology of the disease according to human and environmental factors. It then provides a practical guide for the assessment of sarcopenia in a clinical setting and finishes with advice on present treatment and the exciting frontiers of future therapies.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overAgingHumansSarcopeniaAgeingFunctionMuscleSarcopeniaStrength

Identifiers

PMID29224698
PMCPMC5768235

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.