Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33520799›Full record

ArticleJournal of diabetes and metabolic disorders2020

Comparison of EWGSOP-1and EWGSOP-2 diagnostic criteria on prevalence of and risk factors for sarcopenia among Iranian older people: the Bushehr Elderly Health (BEH) program.

Gita Shafiee, Ramin Heshmat, Afshin Ostovar, Fatemeh Khatami, Noushin Fahimfar, Seyed Masoud Arzaghi, Safoora Gharibzadeh, Sara Hanaei, Iraj Nabipour, Bagher Larijani

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Epidemiology of sarcopenia: A narrative review.Osteoporosis and sarcopenia · 2025
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Gita ShafieeChronic Diseases Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Population Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Ramin HeshmatChronic Diseases Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Population Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Afshin OstovarOsteoporosis Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinical Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Fatemeh KhatamiChronic Diseases Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Population Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Noushin FahimfarOsteoporosis Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinical Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Seyed Masoud ArzaghiElderly Health Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Population Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Safoora GharibzadehOsteoporosis Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinical Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Sara HanaeiResearch Center for Immunodeficiencies (RCID), Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS), Tehran, Iran.
Iraj NabipourThe Persian Gulf Tropical Medicine Research Center, Bushehr University of Medical Sciences, Bushehr, Iran.
Bagher LarijaniEndocrinology and Metabolism Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinical Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Tehran University of Medical Sciences · IRBushehr University of Medical Sciences · IRUniversal Scientific Education and Research Network · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study proposed to compare the prevalence and risk factors for sarcopenia by EGWSOP-1 and EWGSOP-2 diagnostic criteria in Iran.

methodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted based on the data collected during the Bushehr Elderly Health (BEH) Program, stage II. Sarcopenia was defined as 3 definitions: EWGSOP-1(with Iranian cut off), EWGSOP-2(with Iranian cut off), EWGSOP-2(with European cut off) definition. We evaluated the age-standardized prevalence of sarcopenia in both genders. Regression analysis was used to show the associations in the adjusted models.

resultsAmong 2426 participants, age-standardized prevalence of sarcopenia, and severe sarcopenia by EWGSOP-1 were 19.7%, and 12.9%, in men and 13.6%, and 16.7% in women, respectively. When we used EWGSOP-2 (with Iranian cut-off) criteria, these values were 10.5%, and 12.7% among men and 7.13% and 16.5% in women, respectively. The prevalence sarcopenia and severe sarcopenia by EWGSOP-2 (with European cut-off) were 12.7%, and 13.4% in men and 5.42%, and 13.7% in women, respectively. In both genders, getting older and high-fat mass were positively associated with sarcopenia, and BMI had a significant inverse association in both genders and all defintions.

conclusionsResults showed that a prevalence of sarcopenia varied largely by using different criteria, in both sexes. EWGSOP2- defined sarcopenia prevalence was lower than that defined using EWGSOP-1 criteria due to different diagnostic factors to detect sarcopenia. Some adverse outcomes should be considered for evaluating sarcopenia to compare the accuracy of EWGSOP-1 and EWGSOP-2.

Indexed as

EWGSOP-1EWGSOP-2PrevalenceSarcopenia

Identifiers

PMID33520799
PMCPMC7843815
OpenAlexW3031406631

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.