ArticleJornal brasileiro de pneumologia : publicacao oficial da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisilogia2022
Are maximum respiratory pressures predictors of sarcopenia in the elderly?
Article in Jornal brasileiro de pneumologia : publicacao oficial da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisilogia, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Physical and inflammatory aspects associated to respiratory sarcopenia in community-dwelling older women.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The value of inspiratory muscle training on poststroke sarcopenia and its effect on rehabilitation outcomes: A randomized controlled trial.Turkish journal of physical medicine and rehabilitation · 2024Article
- The role of maximal inspiratory pressure on functional performance in adults with heart failure.ESC heart failure · 2024Article
- Establishing an optimal diagnostic criterion for respiratory sarcopenia using peak expiratory flow rate.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2024Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare maximum respiratory pressures and spirometric parameters among elderly individuals classified as having no sarcopenia, probable sarcopenia, and confirmed sarcopenia, and to test the ability of these variables to discriminate sarcopenia in a community-dwelling elderly population.
methodsThis was a cross-sectional study involving 221 elderly (≥ 60 years of age) individuals of both sexes. Sarcopenia was diagnosed in accordance with the new consensus of the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People. Maximum respiratory pressures and spirometry parameters were assessed.
resultsThe prevalences of probable sarcopenia and confirmed sarcopenia were 20.4% and 4.1%, respectively. Regardless of the sex, those with confirmed sarcopenia had significantly lower MEP than those with no sarcopenia and probable sarcopenia, whereas only males with confirmed sarcopenia presented with significantly lower MIP than did the other individuals. There was an inverse association of MIP and MEP with sarcopenia, indicating that the decrease by 1 cmH2O in these parameters increases the chance of sarcopenia by 8% and 7%, respectively. Spirometric parameters were not associated with sarcopenia. Cutoff points for MIP and MEP, respectively, were ≤ 46 cmH2O and ≤ 50 cmH2O for elderly women, whereas they were ≤ 63 cmH2O and ≤ 92 cmH2O for elderly men, and both were identified as predictors of sarcopenia (area under the ROC curve > 0.70).
conclusionsSarcopenia was associated with lower maximum respiratory pressures, but not with spirometric parameters. Maximum respiratory pressures can be used as markers of sarcopenia in a community-dwelling elderly population regardless of the sex.
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.