Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38897937›Full record

SynthesisJournal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle2024

Sarcopenic obesity and health outcomes: An umbrella review of systematic reviews with meta-analysis.

Nicola Veronese, Francesco Saverio Ragusa, Francesco Pegreffi, Ligia J Dominguez, Mario Barbagallo, Michela Zanetti, Emanuele Cereda

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Evaluation of Sarcopenic Obesity in Patients with MASLD.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Optimizing prescription of resistance training for body composition, muscle strength, and physical performance in older adults with sarcopenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European review of aging and physical activity : official journal of the European Group for Research into Elderly and Physical Activity · 2026
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  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

7 authors.

Nicola VeroneseDepartment of Health Promotion, Mother and Child Care, Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Francesco Saverio RagusaDepartment of Health Promotion, Mother and Child Care, Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Francesco PegreffiDipartimento di Scienze per la Qualità della Vita-QUVI, Università di Bologna, Rimini, Italy.
Ligia J DominguezFaculty of Medicine and Surgery, "Kore" University of Enna, Enna, Italy.
Mario BarbagalloDepartment of Health Promotion, Mother and Child Care, Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Michela ZanettiGeriatric Clinic, Maggiore Hospital of Trieste, Azienda Sanitaria Universitaria Integrata Giuliano Isontina, Trieste, Italy.
Emanuele CeredaClinical Nutrition and Dietetics Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-0747-1951

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many studies support the idea that sarcopenic obesity (SO) could be considered a potential risk factor for negative health outcomes. These results have been inconsistent, and no umbrella reviews exist regarding this topic. Several databases until November 2023 were searched for systematic reviews with meta-analysis of observational studies (cross-sectional, case-control and prospective). For each association, random-effects summary effect sizes with correspondent 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were evaluated using the GRADE tool. Among the 213 papers initially screened, nine systematic reviews with meta-analysis were included, for a total of 384 710 participants. In cross-sectional and case-control studies, 30 different outcomes were analysed, and 18 were statistically significant. In any population addressed in cross-sectional and case-control studies, compared with non-SO, SO increased the prevalence of cognitive impairment (k = 3; odds ratio [OR] = 3.46; 95% CI: 2.24-5.32; high certainty of evidence), coronary artery disease (k = 2; OR = 2.48; 95% CI: 1.85-3.31) and dyslipidaemia (k = 3; OR = 2.50; 95% CI: 1.51-4.15). When compared with sarcopenia or obesity, the results were conflicting. In prospective studies, the association between SO-compared with non-SO-and other negative outcomes was supported by low/very low certainty of evidence and limited to a few conditions. Besides, no comparison with sarcopenia or obesity was provided. Finally, only a few studies have considered muscle function/physical performance in the diagnostic workup. SO could be considered a risk factor only for a few conditions, with the literature mainly based on cross-sectional and case-control studies. Future studies with clear definitions of SO are needed for quantifying the importance of SO-particularly when compared with the presence of only sarcopenia or obesity-and the weight of muscle function/physical performance in its definition.

Indexed as

ObesitySarcopeniaHumansSystematic Reviews as Topicmeta‐analysisobesitysarcopeniasarcopenic obesityumbrella review

Identifiers

PMID38897937
PMCPMC11294015

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.