Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31617296›Full record

ArticleAustralasian journal on ageing2020

Current knowledge and practice of Australian and New Zealand health-care professionals in sarcopenia diagnosis and treatment: Time to move forward!

Suey S Y Yeung, Esmee M Reijnierse, Marijke C Trappenburg, Carel G M Meskers, Andrea B Maier

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Australasian journal on ageing, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Bridging the gap in nutrition assessment: Barriers and knowledge impact of an educational session on body composition and energy metabolism.Nutrition in clinical practice : official publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Suey S Y YeungDepartment of Medicine and Aged Care, @AgeMelbourne, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Esmee M ReijnierseDepartment of Medicine and Aged Care, @AgeMelbourne, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Marijke C TrappenburgDepartment of Internal Medicine, Section of Gerontology and Geriatrics, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Carel G M MeskersDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Andrea B MaierDepartment of Medicine and Aged Care, @AgeMelbourne, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7206-1724
The Royal Melbourne Hospital · AUAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLZiekenhuis Amstelland · NL

Funding

European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program 675003European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program 689238
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo describe the current knowledge and practice of sarcopenia diagnosis and treatment among health-care professionals before, directly after and 6 months after a professional development event on sarcopenia.

methodsThis longitudinal study included Australian and New Zealand health-care professionals who completed questionnaires on knowledge, practice and barriers regarding sarcopenia before, directly after and 6 months after attending a professional development event on sarcopenia.

resultsA total of 250 professionals participated; 84 completed the 6-month questionnaires. Before, directly after and at 6 months, respectively, 14.7%, 93.4% and 59.5% identified sarcopenia as a disease; 2.0%, 79.6% and 38.1% correctly answered the sex-specific cut-offs for low handgrip strength. Respectively, 12.0% and 14.3% reported to make sarcopenia diagnoses as part of their practice before and at 6 months.

conclusionsKnowledge about sarcopenia is limited among health-care professionals who attended a professional development event. Retention of knowledge remains a challenge to be addressed.

Indexed as

SarcopeniaAgedAustraliaFemaleHand StrengthHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleNew Zealanddiagnosishealth personnelknowledgesarcopeniatherapy

Identifiers

PMID31617296
PMCPMC7497106
OpenAlexW2980985767

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.