ArticleOsteoporosis and sarcopenia2021
Three definitions of probable sarcopenia and associations with falls and functional disability among community-dwelling older adults.
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 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Functional Dependency as a Marker for Positive SARC-F Screen among Older Persons at the Emergency Department.Annals of geriatric medicine and research · 2024Article
- The role of ultrasonographically measured rectus femoris muscle on falls in community-dwelling older adults: a single-center study.European geriatric medicine · 2023Article
- Associations between Body Mass Index and Probable Sarcopenia in Community-Dwelling Older Adults.Nutrients · 2023Article
- Differences in Health-Related Quality of Life in Older People with and without Sarcopenia Covered by Long-Term Care Insurance.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2022Article
- SARC-F and the Risk of Falling in Middle-Aged and Older Community-Dwelling Postmenopausal Women.International journal of environmental research and public health · 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
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the prevalence of probable sarcopenia according to 3 different definitions ("strength, assistance with walking, rise from a chair, climb stairs, falls"- SARC-F score, low grip strength, and the guidelines indicated by the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People 2 - EWGSOP2) and assess the association of probable sarcopenia with functional disability and falls among community-dwelling older adults.
methodsCross-sectional study with 419 older adults. Probable sarcopenia was assessed by 3 definitions: a SARC-F ≥ 4, low grip strength (< 27 kg for men and < 16 kg for women), and the EWGSOP2 criteria. Associations were investigated using Pearson's chi-square test and prevalence ratios were estimated by Poisson regression (P < 0.05).
resultsOf the total, probable sarcopenia was identified in 23.0% of participants (SARC-F ≥ 4 score), 33.7% (low grip strength), and 10.4% (EWGSOP2) according to each different definition. In adjusted regression models, having at least 1 instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) disability and having fallen in the last 12 months were significantly associated with a SARC-F ≥ 4 (prevalence ratio, PR = 1.60; and PR = 2.50, respectively) and EWGSOP2 (PR = 1.78; and PR = 2.19, respectively).
conclusionsIADL disability and falls were associated with a SARC-F ≥ 4 and the EWGSOP2 criteria (SARC-F ≥ 4 and low grip strength). Probable sarcopenia may be used in clinical practice in order to facilitate the diagnosis of definite sarcopenia and to implement early interventions that could prevent functional decline and falls in older people.
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.