ArticleEuropean geriatric medicine2025
Towards a core outcome set for sarcopenia intervention studies: a scoping review identifying the most frequently reported outcomes across randomized controlled trials in sarcopenia.
Article in European geriatric medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- The sarcopenia-pain connection: why mechanisms matter for patient care?Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- The relationship between osteoporosis and sarcopenia parameters in postmenopausal women under 60 years of age: A cross-sectional study.Irish journal of medical science · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to identify the most frequently reported outcomes in sarcopenia trials, as a basis for developing a Core Outcome Set (COS). MATERIAL AND
methodsA systematic review was conducted with a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from database inception to March 2024 (PRISMA guidelines, PROSPERO: CRD42024525506). Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on sarcopenia treatment, including patients diagnosed with a consensus definition. All outcomes reported in those studies were extracted and grouped into predefined subcategories.
resultsAmong 3985 references, 58 studies (54 unique RCTs) met the inclusion criteria, reporting 214 efficacy and 39 safety outcomes. The most frequently reported outcomes were muscle mass (50 studies, i.e., present in 86.2% of studies), muscle strength (50 studies, 86.2%), physical performance (46 studies, 79.3%), nutrition-related outcomes (29 studies, 50.0%), and fat mass (28 studies, 48.3%). Among the primary outcomes, change in muscle mass was the most commonly reported outcome (23 studies, 39.7%, with appendicular skeletal muscle mass index and fat-free mass as the predominant measures), followed by change in muscle strength (16 studies, 27.6%, mainly assessed by handgrip strength), followed by change in physical performance (13 studies, 22.4%, mainly assessed by gait speed and lower limb physical function). Secondary outcomes included biomarkers, physical status, quality of life, activities of daily living, bone mass, psychological status, cognitive function, and unclassified outcomes.
conclusionsThis review highlights the extensive heterogeneity of reported outcomes in sarcopenia intervention studies and the urgent need for developing a COS.
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.