ArticleAging clinical and experimental research2021
Experts' preferences for sarcopenia outcomes: a discrete-choice experiment from a working group of the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) in collaboration with the European Union of Geriatric Medicine Society (EUGMS).
Article in Aging clinical and experimental research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Evidence-based position paper on Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (PRM) professional practice for persons with sarcopenia. The European PRM position (UEMS PRM Section).European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Outcomes in clinical trials on sarcopenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The journal of nutrition, health & aging · 2026Pooled it
- Risk factors for new vertebral compression fracture following percutaneous vertebral augmentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on multivariate logistic regression analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Pooled it
- The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Pooled it
- Predictive validity of current sarcopenia definitions (EWGSOP2, SDOC, and AWGS2) for clinical outcomes: A scoping review.Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle · 2023Article
- Muscle Strength and Physical Performance Are Associated with Reaction Time Performance in Older People.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Lower Limb Muscle Strength and Muscle Mass Are Associated With Incident Symptomatic Knee Osteoarthritis: A Longitudinal Cohort Study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsTo assess experts' preference for sarcopenia outcomes.
methodsA discrete-choice experiment was conducted among 37 experts (medical doctors and researchers) from different countries around the world. In the survey, they were repetitively asked to choose which one of two hypothetical patients suffering from sarcopenia deserves the most a treatment. The two hypothetical patients differed in five pre-selected sarcopenia outcomes: quality of life, mobility, domestic activities, fatigue and falls. A mixed logit panel model was used to estimate the relative importance of each attribute.
resultsAll sarcopenia outcomes were shown to be significant, and thus, important for experts. Overall, the most important sarcopenia outcome was falls (27%) followed by domestic activities and mobility (24%), quality of life (15%) and fatigue (10%). DISCUSSION AND
conclusionCompared to patient's preferences, experts considered falls as a more important outcome of sarcopenia, while the outcomes fatigue and difficulties in domestic activities were considered as less important.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.