Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36564353›Full record

ArticleJournal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle2023

Predictive validity of current sarcopenia definitions (EWGSOP2, SDOC, and AWGS2) for clinical outcomes: A scoping review.

Anna K Stuck, Giacomo Basile, Gregor Freystaetter, Caroline de Godoi Rezende Costa Molino, Wei Lang, Heike A Bischoff-Ferrari

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The Neuromuscular Junction: A Shared Vulnerability in Aging and Disease.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Prevention of Sarcopenia.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2025
    Review
  13. Definitions and adverse outcomes of sarcopenia in older patients in orthopedic and trauma care: A scoping review on current evidence.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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.

Anna K StuckCentre on Aging and Mobility, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-8322-5501
Giacomo BasileCentre on Aging and Mobility, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Gregor FreystaetterCentre on Aging and Mobility, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Caroline de Godoi Rezende Costa MolinoCentre on Aging and Mobility, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Wei LangCentre on Aging and Mobility, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Heike A Bischoff-FerrariCentre on Aging and Mobility, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the last 3 years new definitions of sarcopenia by the Sarcopenia Definition and Outcome Consortium (2020, SDOC), European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (2019, EWGSOP2) and Asian Working Group on Sarcopenia (2019, AWGS2) have been proposed. The objective of this scoping review was to explore predictive validity of these current sarcopenia definitions for clinical outcomes. We followed the PRISMA checklist for scoping reviews. Based on a systematic search performed by two independent reviewers of databases (Pubmed and Embase) articles comparing predictive validity of two or more sarcopenia definitions on prospective clinical outcomes published since January 2019 (the year these definitions were introduced) were included. Data were extracted and results collated by clinical outcomes and by sarcopenia definitions, respectively. Of 4493 articles screened, 11 studies (mean age of participants 77.6 (SD 5.7) years and 50.0% female) comprising 82 validity tests were included. Overall, validity tests on the following categories of clinical outcomes were performed: fracture (n = 40, assessed in one study), mortality (n = 18), function (n = 11), institutionalization (n = 7), falls (n = 4), and hospitalization (n = 2). Thereby, EWGSOP2 was investigated in 15 validity tests (18.3%) on all categories of clinical outcomes, whereas SDOC was investigated in four validity tests (4.9%) in one study on fractures in men only, and none of the validity tests investigated predictive validity by the AWGS2. However, we were not able to pool the data using a meta-analytic approach due to important methodological heterogeneity between the studies. We identified various definitions of clinical outcomes that were used to test predictive validity of sarcopenia definitions suggesting that an agreement on an operational definition of a clinical outcome is key to advance in the field of sarcopenia. Moreover, data on predictive validity using the sarcopenia definitions by the SDOC and AWGS2 are still scarce and lacking, respectively. In a next step, prospective studies including both women and men are needed to compare predictive validity of current sarcopenia definitions on defined key clinical outcomes.

Indexed as

Fractures, BoneSarcopeniaAgedFemaleHand StrengthHospitalizationHumansMaleProspective StudiesFallsFractureMortalityOlder adultsPredictionValidity

Identifiers

PMID36564353
PMCPMC9891988

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.