ArticleFrontiers in public health2024
The diagnostic agreement of sarcopenic obesity with different definitions in Chinese community-dwelling middle-aged and older adults.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transcending aging: disease specificity, assessment challenges, and management strategies for rheumatoid arthritis-related sarcopenia.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Diagnostic variability in sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity among older adults: a clinical and public health challenge.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- The association between sarcopenic obesity, sarcopenia and functional dependence, malnutrition, and mortality: the phenomenon of obesity paradox in sarcopenic obesity.European geriatric medicine · 2025Article
- Association between sarcopenic obesity and dementia in the Chinese elderly using different definitions of obesity: evidence from the CHARLS.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2025Article
- Sarcopenia is not associated with hypertension, but sarcopenic obesity increases risk of hypertension: a 7-year cohort study.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In 2022, the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) and the European Association for the Study of Obesity (EASO) launched a consensus on the diagnostic methods for sarcopenic obesity (SO). The study aimed to identify the prevalence and diagnostic agreement of SO using different diagnostic methods in a cohort of subjects from West China aged at least 50 years old. Methods: A large multi-ethnic sample of 4,155 participants from the West China Health and Aging Trend (WCHAT) study was analyzed. SO was defined according to the newly published consensus of the ESPEN/EASO. Furthermore, SO was diagnosed as a combination of sarcopenia and obesity. The criteria established by the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia 2019 (AWGS2019) were used to define sarcopenia. Obesity was defined by four widely used indicators: percent of body fat (PBF), visceral fat area (VFA), waist circumference (WC), and body mass index (BMI). Cohen's kappa was used to analyze the diagnostic agreement of the above five diagnostic methods. Results: A total of 4,155 participants were part of the study, including 1,499 men (63.76 ± 8.23 years) and 2,656 women (61.61 ± 8.20 years). The prevalence of SO was 0.63-7.22% with different diagnostic methods. The diagnosis agreement of five diagnostic methods was poor-to-good (κ: 0.06-0.67). The consensus by the ESPEN/EASO had the poorest agreement with other methods (κ: 0.06-0.32). AWGS+VFA had the best agreement with AWGS+WC (κ = 0.67), and consensus by the ESPEN/EASO had the best agreement with AWGS+ PBF (κ = 0.32). Conclusion: The prevalence and diagnostic agreement of SO varies considerably between different diagnostic methods. AWGS+WC has the highest diagnostic rate in the diagnosis of SO, whereas AWGS+BMI has the lowest. AWGS+VFA has a relatively good diagnostic agreement with other diagnostic methods, while the consensus of the ESPEN/EASO has a poor diagnostic agreement. AWGS+PBF may be suitable for the alternative diagnosis of the 2022 ESPEN/EASO.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.