ArticleZdravstveno varstvo2025
Prevalence of Sarcopenia Among Slovenian Older Adults and Associated Risk Factors.
Article in Zdravstveno varstvo, 2025. 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.
- Doctors' and Pharmacists' knowledge, skills, and perception of mental frailty in older adults: a scoping review.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- Association between TMG-derived contractile muscle parameters and MRI-based muscle structure in sarcopenia.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Tensiomyography-derived contractile parameters in sarcopenic and non-sarcopenic older adults.Frontiers in aging · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a machine learning-based risk prediction model for sarcopenia in community hospital patients: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in aging · 2026Article
- Comprehensive management of frailty. A broader perspective of implementation project "Systemic Approach to Frailty with a Focus on Pre-Frailty for Healthy and High-Quality Aging".The Journal of frailty & aging · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Sarcopenia is a multifaceted condition affecting between 10 and 16% of the global population, and although multiple classification algorithms exist, no prevalence has been reported for a representative sample of the Slovenian population. Furthermore, multiple behavioural factors, such as malnutrition, physical inactivity, sedentary lifestyle and lower cognitive function, can contribute to the risk of sarcopenia. This study aims to: a) determine sarcopenia prevalence among Slovenian older adults according to different classification algorithms, b) compare the agreement among the algorithms and c) evaluate the relationship between proposed risk factors and sarcopenia. Methods: 654 participants (≥60 years, 30.4% males) have been classified into sarcopenia groups according to eight algorithms, and agreement (Fleiss K) between them was calculated. Additionally, age, sex, nutritional status, physical activity, sedentary levels and cognitive function were assessed as sarcopenia risk/protective factors. Results: The prevalence of sarcopenia according to EWGSOP2 was 4.1%, ranging from 2.1% to 15.3%, when classified by all eight algorithms. Overall agreement between algorithms was weak (K=.429; 95% CI .414 to .444) with 0.6% of participants classified as sarcopenic by all eight algorithms. Adequate nutrition and physical activity were identified as protective factors, while age, lower cognitive function and sedentary lifestyle were considered risk factors. Conclusion: Sarcopenia prevalence among the Slovenian general population was lower than in the global population. We can conclude that different sarcopenia algorithms lead to a different prevalence of sarcopenia. It is of great importance to be cautious when comparing prevalences among studies and to further validate the classification algorithms.
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.