Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33997303›Full record

ArticleOsteoporosis and sarcopenia2021

Systematic review and meta-analysis of lean mass and mortality: Rationale and study description.

Ching-Lung Cheung, Grace Koon-Yee Lee, Philip Chun-Ming Au, Gloria Hoi-Yee Li, Marcus Chan, Hang-Long Li, Bernard Man-Yung Cheung, Ian Chi-Kei Wong, Victor Ho-Fun Lee, James Mok and 3 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Osteoporosis and sarcopenia, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Nutritional Management in Bariatric Surgery Patients.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

13 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Ching-Lung CheungDepartment of Pharmacology and Pharmacy, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong.
Grace Koon-Yee LeeDepartment of Pharmacology and Pharmacy, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong.
Philip Chun-Ming AuDepartment of Pharmacology and Pharmacy, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong.
Gloria Hoi-Yee LiDepartment of Pharmacology and Pharmacy, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong.
Marcus ChanLi Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong.
Hang-Long LiLi Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong.
Bernard Man-Yung CheungDepartment of Medicine, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong.
Ian Chi-Kei WongDepartment of Pharmacology and Pharmacy, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong.
Victor Ho-Fun LeeDepartment of Clinical Oncology, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong.
James MokLi Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong.
Benjamin Hon-Kei YipJC School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong.
Kenneth King-Yip ChengDepartment of Health Technology and Informatics, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Hong Kong.
Chih-Hsing WuDepartment of Family Medicine, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan.
University of Hong Kong · HKChinese University of Hong Kong · HKHong Kong Polytechnic University · HKNational Cheng Kung University Hospital · TW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesMuscle mass is one of the key components in defining sarcopenia and is known to be important for locomotion and body homeostasis. Lean mass is commonly used as a surrogate of muscle mass and has been shown to be associated with increased mortality. However, the relationship of lean mass with mortality may be affected by different clinical conditions, modalities used, cut-off point to define low or normal lean mass, and even types of cancer among cancer patients. Thus, we aim to perform a comprehensive meta-analysis of lean mass with mortality by considering all these factors.

methodsSystematic search was done in PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase for articles related to lean mass and mortality. Lean mass measured by dual X-ray absorptiometry, bioelectrical impedance analysis, and computerized tomography were included.

resultsThe number of relevant studies has increased continuously since 2002. A total of 188 studies with 98 468 people were included in the meta-analysis. The association of lean mass with mortality was most studied in cancer patients, followed by people with renal diseases, liver diseases, elderly, people with cardiovascular disease, lung diseases, and other diseases. The meta-analysis can be further conducted in subgroups based on measurement modalities, site of measurements, definition of low lean mass adopted, and types of cancer for studies conducted in cancer patients.

conclusionsThis series of meta-analysis provided insight and evidence on the relationship between lean mass and mortality in all directions, which may be useful for further study and guideline development.

Indexed as

Lean massMeta-analysisMortalitySarcopeniaSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID33997303
PMCPMC8088993
OpenAlexW3131802182

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.