Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34816624›Full record

SynthesisJournal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle2022

Global prevalence of sarcopenia and severe sarcopenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Fanny Petermann-Rocha, Viktoria Balntzi, Stuart R Gray, Jose Lara, Frederick K Ho, Jill P Pell, Carlos Celis-Morales

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 869 papers, 16 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
869citing papers in PubMed, 16 pooled it
94.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

869 citing papers in PubMed, 16 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 1,320 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. How Pragmatic Are Sarcopenia Intervention Studies? A Systematic Review.Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle · 2026
    Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

809 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Fanny Petermann-RochaInstitute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4384-4962
Viktoria BalntziBritish Heart Foundation Glasgow Cardiovascular Research Centre, Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Stuart R GrayBritish Heart Foundation Glasgow Cardiovascular Research Centre, Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8969-9636
Jose LaraDepartment of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle, UK.
Frederick K HoInstitute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7190-9025
Jill P PellInstitute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8898-7035
Carlos Celis-MoralesBritish Heart Foundation Glasgow Cardiovascular Research Centre, Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2612-3917
British Heart Foundation · GBUniversity of Glasgow · GBNorthumbria University · GBUniversidad Mayor · CL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSarcopenia is defined as the loss of muscle mass and strength. Despite the seriousness of this disease, a single diagnostic criterion has not yet been established. Few studies have reported the prevalence of sarcopenia globally, and there is a high level of heterogeneity between studies, stemmed from the diagnostic criteria of sarcopenia and the target population. The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis were (i) to identify and summarize the diagnostic criteria used to define sarcopenia and severe sarcopenia and (ii) to estimate the global and region-specific prevalence of sarcopenia and severe sarcopenia by sociodemographic factors.

methodsEmbase, MEDLINE, and Web of Science Core Collections were searched using relevant MeSH terms. The inclusion criteria were cross-sectional or cohort studies in individuals aged ≥18 years, published in English, and with muscle mass measured using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, bioelectrical impedance, or computed tomography (CT) scan. For the meta-analysis, studies were stratified by diagnostic criteria (classifications), cut-off points, and instruments to assess muscle mass. If at least three studies reported the same classification, cut-off points, and instrument to measure muscle mass, they were considered suitable for meta-analysis. Following this approach, 6 classifications and 23 subgroups were created. Overall pooled estimates with inverse-variance weights obtained from a random-effects model were estimated using the metaprop command in Stata.

resultsOut of 19 320 studies, 263 were eligible for the narrative synthesis and 151 for meta-analysis (total n = 692 056, mean age: 68.5 years). Using different classifications and cut-off points, the prevalence of sarcopenia varied between 10% and 27% in the studies included for meta-analysis. The highest and lowest prevalence were observed in Oceania and Europe using the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP) and EWGSOP2, respectively. The prevalence ranged from 8% to 36% in individuals <60 years and from 10% to 27% in ≥60 years. Men had a higher prevalence of sarcopenia using the EWGSOP2 (11% vs. 2%) while it was higher in women using the International Working Group on Sarcopenia (17% vs. 12%). Finally, the prevalence of severe sarcopenia ranged from 2% to 9%.

conclusionsThe prevalence of sarcopenia and severe sarcopenia varied considerably according to the classification and cut-off point used. Considering the lack of a single diagnostic for sarcopenia, future studies should adhere to current guidelines, which would facilitate the comparison of results between studies and populations across the globe.

Indexed as

SarcopeniaAbsorptiometry, PhotonAdolescentAdultAgedElectric ImpedanceFemaleHand StrengthHumansMalePrevalenceMeta-analysisPrevalenceSarcopeniaSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID34816624
PMCPMC8818604
OpenAlexW3202133882

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.