ArticleLupus2025
Association of a self-report screening tool for sarcopenia (SARC-F) with functional status outcomes in systemic lupus erythematosus.
Article in Lupus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background/PurposeSarcopenia, i.e., loss of skeletal muscle mass and strength, is associated with poorer health. Although limited data suggest that sarcopenia is more prevalent among adults with (vs without) systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), current methods for assessing sarcopenia are cumbersome and not widely available. We assessed associations of a self-report screening tool for sarcopenia (SARC-F) with functional outcomes in adults with SLE.MethodsWe obtained self-report functional measures and performance-based measures of physical function from women ≥18 years of age with SLE. Participants completed the SARC-F, covering strength, assistance walking, rising from a chair, climbing stairs, and falls. We compared self-report functional measures and performance-based measures of physical function between dichotomized SARC-F scores (≥4 vs <4). We used Pearson correlations and linear and logistic regression to evaluate the relationship between the SARC-F as a continuous and dichotomous score with self-report functional measures and performance-based measures of physical function.ResultsOf 47 participants, 16 (34%) had worse SARC-F scores (i.e., ≥4). Participants with SARC-F ≥4 had worse organ damage and functional measures than those with SARC-F <4 (all
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.