Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35187864›Full record

SynthesisJournal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle2022

Systematic review and meta-analysis of protein intake to support muscle mass and function in healthy adults.

Everson A Nunes, Lauren Colenso-Semple, Sean R McKellar, Thomas Yau, Muhammad Usman Ali, Donna Fitzpatrick-Lewis, Diana Sherifali, Claire Gaudichon, Daniel Tomé, Philip J Atherton and 5 more

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 158 papers, 17 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
158citing papers in PubMed, 17 pooled it
23.2field-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

158 citing papers in PubMed, 17 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 215 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. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

98 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

15 authors at 9 institutions in 7 countries.

Everson A NunesExercise Metabolism Research Group, Department of Kinesiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9994-5677
Lauren Colenso-SempleExercise Metabolism Research Group, Department of Kinesiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Sean R McKellarExercise Metabolism Research Group, Department of Kinesiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Thomas YauExercise Metabolism Research Group, Department of Kinesiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Muhammad Usman AliMcMaster Evidence Review and Synthesis Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Donna Fitzpatrick-LewisMcMaster Evidence Review and Synthesis Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Diana SherifaliSchool of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Claire GaudichonUniversité Paris-Saclay, AgroParisTech, INRAE, UMR PNCA, Paris, France.
Daniel ToméUniversité Paris-Saclay, AgroParisTech, INRAE, UMR PNCA, Paris, France.
Philip J AthertonMRC Versus Arthritis Centre of Excellence for Musculoskeletal Ageing Research (CMAR), NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Maria Camprubi RoblesAbbott Nutrition, Research and Development, Granada, Spain.
Sandra Naranjo-ModadGivaudan, Research and Development, Avignon, France.
Michelle BraunInternational Flavors & Fragrances, Research and Development, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Francesco LandiFondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Stuart M PhillipsExercise Metabolism Research Group, Department of Kinesiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1956-4098
McMaster University · CAAgroParisTech · FRMcMaster University Medical Centre · CAAbbott (Spain) · ESAgostino Gemelli University Polyclinic · ITGivaudan (France) · FRInternational Flavors & Fragrances (United States) · USUniversidade Federal de Santa Catarina · BRUniversity of Nottingham · GB

Funding

Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) 308584/2019-8
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We performed a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression to determine if increasing daily protein ingestion contributes to gaining lean body mass (LBM), muscle strength, and physical/functional test performance in healthy subjects. A protocol for the present study was registered (PROSPERO, CRD42020159001), and a systematic search of Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Sciences databases was undertaken. Only randomized controlled trials (RCT) where participants increased their daily protein intake and were healthy and non-obese adults were included. Research questions focused on the main effects on the outcomes of interest and subgroup analysis, splitting the studies by participation in a resistance exercise (RE), age (<65 or ≥65 years old), and levels of daily protein ingestion. Three-level random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions were conducted on data from 74 RCT. Most of the selected studies tested the effects of additional protein ingestion during RE training. The evidence suggests that increasing daily protein ingestion may enhance gains in LBM in studies enrolling subjects in RE (SMD [standardized mean difference] = 0.22, 95% CI [95% confidence interval] 0.14:0.30, P < 0.01, 62 studies, moderate level of evidence). The effect on LBM was significant in subjects ≥65 years old ingesting 1.2-1.59 g of protein/kg/day and for younger subjects (<65 years old) ingesting ≥1.6 g of protein/kg/day submitted to RE. Lower-body strength gain was slightly higher by additional protein ingestion at ≥1.6 g of protein/kg/day during RE training (SMD = 0.40, 95% CI 0.09:0.35, P < 0.01, 19 studies, low level of evidence). Bench press strength is slightly increased by ingesting more protein in <65 years old subjects during RE training (SMD = 0.18, 95% CI 0.03:0.33, P = 0.01, 32 studies, low level of evidence). The effects of ingesting more protein are unclear when assessing handgrip strength and only marginal for performance in physical function tests. In conclusion, increasing daily protein ingestion results in small additional gains in LBM and lower body muscle strength gains in healthy adults enrolled in resistance exercise training. There is a slight effect on bench press strength and minimal effect performance in physical function tests. The effect on handgrip strength is unclear.

Indexed as

Resistance TrainingAdultAgedExerciseExercise TherapyHumansMusclesMuscle StrengthRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicMuscle massMuscle strengthPhysical functionProtein quantity

Identifiers

PMID35187864
PMCPMC8978023
OpenAlexW4213386767

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.