Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35906934›Full record

ArticleAge and ageing2022

European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People 2010 (EWGSOP1) and 2019 (EWGSOP2) criteria or slowness: which is the best predictor of mortality risk in older adults?

Maria Claudia Bernardes Spexoto, Paula Camila Ramírez, Roberta de Oliveira Máximo, Andrew Steptoe, Cesar de Oliveira, Tiago da Silva Alexandre

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Age and ageing, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

6 authors.

Maria Claudia Bernardes SpexotoFood, Nutrition and Health Postgraduate Program, Federal University of Grande Dourados, Dourados, Brazil.
Paula Camila RamírezEscuela de Fisioterapia, Universidad Industrial de Santander, Bucaramanga, Colombia.
Roberta de Oliveira MáximoPhysical Therapy Postgraduate Program, Federal University of Sao Carlos, Sao Carlos, Brazil.
Andrew SteptoeDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7808-4943
Cesar de OliveiraDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, UK.
Tiago da Silva AlexandreGerontology Postgraduate Program, Federal University of Sao Carlos, Sao Carlos, Brazil.

Funding

Project-001R01AG017644 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF LONDON INST OF NEUROLOGY · PI Andrew Steptoe · 2000 to 2026
$56.2M
NIA NIH HHS R01 AG017644
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesto analyse the accuracy of grip strength and gait speed in identifying mortality; to compare the association between mortality and sarcopenia defined by the EWGSOP1 and EWGSOP2 using the best cut-off found in the present study and those recommended in the literature and to test whether slowness is better than these two definitions to identify the risk of death in older adults.

methodsa longitudinal study was conducted involving 6,182 individuals aged 60 or older who participated in the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. Sarcopenia was defined based on the EWGSOP1 and EWGSOP2 using different cut-off for low muscle strength (LMS). Mortality was analysed in a 14-year follow-up.

resultscompared with the LMS definitions in the literature (<32, <30, <27 and < 26 kg for men; <21, <20 and < 16 kg for women), the cut-off of <36 kg for men (sensitivity = 58.59%, specificity = 72.96%, area under the curve [AUC] = 0.66) and < 23 kg for women (sensitivity = 68.90%, specificity = 59.03%, AUC = 0.64) as well as a low gait speed (LGS) ≤0.8 m/s (sensitivity = 53.72%, specificity = 74.02%, AUC = 0.64) demonstrated the best accuracy for mortality. Using the cut-off found in the present study, probable sarcopenia [HR = 1.30 (95%CI: 1.16-1.46)], sarcopenia [HR = 1.48 (95%CI: 1.24-1.78)] and severe sarcopenia [HR = 1.78 (95%CI: 1.49-2.12)] according to EWGSOP2 were better predictors of mortality risk than EWGSOP1. LGS ≤0.8 m/s was a better mortality risk predictor only when LMS was defined by low cut-off.

conclusionsusing LMS <36 kg for men and < 23 kg for women and LGS ≤ 0.8 m/s, EWGSOP2 was the best predictor for mortality risk in older adults.

Indexed as

SarcopeniaAgedFemaleHand StrengthHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleMuscle StrengthPrevalenceWalking SpeedEnglish Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA study)handgrip strengthlongitudinal studymobilityolder peoplesarcopenia

Identifiers

PMID35906934
PMCPMC9338689

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.