Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35301816›Full record

ArticleJournal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle2022

Mapping ongoing nutrition intervention trials in muscle, sarcopenia, and cachexia: a scoping review of future research.

Camila E Orsso, Montserrat Montes-Ibarra, Merran Findlay, Barbara S van der Meij, Marian A E de van der Schueren, Francesco Landi, Alessandro Laviano, Carla M Prado

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article 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 37 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
7.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Multimodal interventions for cachexia management.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Observational
  12. Review
  13. Meeting physical activity guidelines in conjunction with higher protein intake: associations with appendicular lean soft tissue index in middle aged adults with cancer.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Observational
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.

Camila E OrssoHuman Nutrition Research Unit, Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5989-0528
Montserrat Montes-IbarraHuman Nutrition Research Unit, Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Merran FindlayCancer Services, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.
Barbara S van der MeijBond University Nutrition and Dietetics Research Group, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
Marian A E de van der SchuerenDepartment of Nutrition, Dietetics and Lifestyle, School of Allied Health, HAN University of Applied Sciences, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Francesco LandiDepartment of Geriatrics, Neurosciences and Orthopaedics, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy.
Alessandro LavianoDepartment of Translational and Precision Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Carla M PradoHuman Nutrition Research Unit, Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-3609-5641
University of Alberta · CAHAN University of Applied Sciences · NLRoyal Prince Alfred Hospital · AUSapienza University of Rome · ITUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore · IT

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Muscle loss alone, or in the context of sarcopenia or cachexia, is a prevalent condition and a predictor of negative outcomes in aging and disease. As adequate nutrition is essential for muscle maintenance, a growing number of studies has been conducted to explore the role of specific nutrients on muscle mass or function. Nonetheless, more research is needed to guide evidence-based recommendations. This scoping review aimed to compile and document ongoing clinical trials investigating nutrition interventions as a strategy to prevent or treat low muscle mass or function (strength and physical performance), sarcopenia, or cachexia. ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched up to 21 April 2021 for planned and ongoing trials. Randomized controlled trials with ≥20 participants per arm were included based on intent to explore the effects of nutrition interventions on muscle-related outcomes (i.e. muscle mass or strength, physical performance, or muscle synthesis rate) in both clinical and non-clinical conditions (i.e. aging). Two reviewers independently screened records for eligibility, and a descriptive synthesis of trials characteristics was conducted. A total of 113 trials were included in the review. Most trials (69.0%) enroll adults with clinical conditions, such as cancer (19.5%), obesity and metabolic diseases (16.8%), and musculoskeletal diseases (10.7%). The effects of nutrition interventions on age-related muscle loss are explored in 31% of trials. Although nutrition interventions of varied types were identified, food supplements alone (48.7%) or combined with dietary advice (11.5%) are most frequently reported. Protein (17.7%), amino acids (10.6%), and β-hydroxy-β-methylbutyrate (HMB, 6.2%) are the top three food supplements' nutrients under investigation. Primary outcome of most trials (54.9%) consists of measures of muscle mass alone or in combination with muscle strength and/or performance (as either primary or secondary outcomes). Muscle strength and physical performance are primary outcomes of 38% and 31.9% of the trials, respectively. These measurements were obtained using a variety of techniques. Only a few trials evaluate muscle synthesis rate either as a primary or secondary outcome (5.3%). Several nutrition studies focusing on muscle, sarcopenia, and cachexia are underway and can inform future research in this area. Although many trials have similar type of interventions, methodological heterogeneity may challenge study comparisons, and future meta-analyses aiming to provide evidence-based recommendations. Upcoming research in this area may benefit from guidelines for the assessment of therapeutic effects of nutrition interventions.

Indexed as

SarcopeniaAdultCachexiaHumansMuscle, SkeletalMuscle StrengthNutritional StatusCachexiaClinical trialsDietary interventionMuscleNutrition interventionSarcopenia

Identifiers

PMID35301816
PMCPMC9178172
OpenAlexW4220710977

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.