SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2025
Sarcopenia defined by multidimensional factors and its prognostic role in heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cardiometabolic Aging Driven by Multi-Organ Crosstalk: Mechanisms and Therapeutic Strategies.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the impact of sarcopenia-defined by reductions in muscle mass, strength, and/or function-on clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF), thereby informing more effective management strategies. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted through 14 February 2025, using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and CNKI to identify prospective and retrospective cohort studies involving HF patients diagnosed with sarcopenia based on Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia (AWGS), European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP2), or Ishii criteria. Data extraction was performed using standardized forms, and study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Meta-analytical procedures, including heterogeneity assessment and subgroup analyses, were carried out in Stata 18.0 and R 4.4.2. Results: Fifteen studies comprising 5,713 HF patients were included. Pooled analysis demonstrated that sarcopenia significantly increased the risk of adverse clinical outcomes [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.62, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.35-1.89], including all-cause mortality (HR = 1.89, 95% CI: 1.63-2.15) and major adverse cardiovascular events (HR = 1.37, 95% CI: 1.11-1.64). Subgroup analyses revealed that sarcopenia defined by AWGS criteria and the Ishii score was significantly associated with worse outcomes (HR = 1.63, 95% CI: 1.33-1.94; HR = 1.78, 95% CI: 1.29-2.27, respectively), whereas definitions based on EWGSOP2 did not reach statistical significance (HR = 1.87, 95% CI: 0.70-3.05). Sarcopenia identified through DXA or BIA-based muscle mass assessments was also significantly correlated with adverse outcomes (DXA: HR = 1.53, 95% CI: 1.29-1.78; BIA: HR = 1.85, 95% CI: 1.10-2.61). Statistically significant associations were observed across all remaining subgroups. Conclusion: Sarcopenia, when defined using multidimensional criteria, is significantly associated with poor clinical outcomes in patients with HF. These findings underscore the importance of implementing comprehensive sarcopenia assessments to enhance prognostic evaluation and guide early intervention. Clinically, adopting multidimensional diagnostic approaches can improve risk stratification and optimize the management of HF patients. Systematic review registration: https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2025-3-0023/, identifier INPLASY202530023.
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.