Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29500527›Full record

SynthesisOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2018

Association of sarcopenia and fractures in community-dwelling older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies.

Y Zhang, Q Hao, M Ge, B Dong

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Y ZhangChengdu Medical College, Chengdu, Sichuan, 610500, China.
Q HaoNational Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, 610041, People's Republic of China.
M GeNational Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, 610041, People's Republic of China.
B DongNational Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, 610041, People's Republic of China. birongdong123@outlook.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3655-3155
Sichuan University · CNChengdu Medical College · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To our knowledge, no comprehensive meta-analysis has examined the association between sarcopenia and the risk of fractures. This systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies aims to summarize whether sarcopenia is a risk factor for fractures among community-dwelling older adults. We searched four electronic literature databases (Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed) for relevant publications from inception to December 2017, using relevant keywords. We conducted a pooled analysis of the association between sarcopenia and the risk of fractures by employing a random-effects model. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on definitions of sarcopenia and gender. In total, nine studies were included in our systematic review and meta-analysis. The prevalence of sarcopenia ranged from 4.3 to 33.1%. The pooled RR of fractures for the sarcopenic versus the nonsarcopenic was 1.34 (95% CI = 1.13-1.58, P = 0.001, I

Indexed as

FemaleHumansIndependent LivingMaleOsteoporotic FracturesPrevalencePublication BiasRisk AssessmentSarcopeniaSensitivity and SpecificitySex FactorsFracturesMeta-analysisSarcopenia

Identifiers

PMID29500527
OpenAlexW2791044744

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.