Observational studyJournal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle2026
Operationalizing the Global Leadership Initiative in Sarcopenia: Muscle-Specific Strength, Optimal Criteria and Clinical Relevance.
Observational study in Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association between muscle-specific strength and disability in instrumental activities of daily living in patients with chronic kidney disease.International urology and nephrology · 2026Article
- Examining the relationship between D3Cr muscle mass, physical performance, and functional limitation in postmenopausal women.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2026Article
- Operationalizing the Global Leadership Initiative in Sarcopenia: Muscle-Specific Strength, Optimal Criteria and Clinical Relevance.Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle · 2026Observational
- Sarcopenia in breast cancer: prognostic values and emerging therapeutic strategies.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Review
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
backgroundWhile the Global Leadership Initiative on Sarcopenia (GLIS) is promising to standardize sarcopenia diagnosis, its operational implementation remains largely undefined. This study aims to operationalize GLIS and evaluate its feasibility, diagnostic concordance and clinical relevance.
methodsThis three-stage, multicenter study enrolled 12 116 participants for cut-off development (mean age 58.7 years, 48.2% men) and 11 241 participants for outcome analysis (mean age 58.4 years, 49.4% men) from a national survey in China. Another 504 patients with chronic kidney disease were included for validation. We proposed the lower limb skeletal muscle mass to five-time chair stand test ratio (LFR) to assess muscle-specific strength (MSS). The GLIS conceptual framework was instantiated into six diagnostic criteria combinations using handgrip strength (HGS), appendicular skeletal muscle mass index (ASMI, estimated using a validated formula) and MSS: (1) all three criteria being low (HAM); (2) low HGS plus low ASMI (HA); (3) low MSS (M); (4) low HGS plus low ASMI, or low MSS (HA/M); (5) low HGS or low MSS (H/M); and (6) low ASMI or low MSS (A/M). Intercriteria concordance of these definitions, relevance with functional outcomes and their concordance with the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia 2019 (AWGS) criteria were evaluated.
resultsLow MSS cut-offs were established as < 0.74 for men and < 0.47 for women. Sarcopenia prevalence varied significantly across different definitions: 1055 (8.7%, AWGS), 405 (3.3%, HAM), 619 (5.1%, HA), 2409 (19.9%, M), 2623 (21.6%, HA/M), 3184 (26.3%, H/M) and 3868 (31.9%, A/M). The HA method showed the highest concordance with the AWGS (accuracy = 0.964, κ = 0.722, sensitivity = 1.000, specificity = 0.962). The H/M method demonstrated the strongest correlation with functional outcomes and optimal diagnostic performance (AUCs range from 0.566 to 0.729), with superior discrimination for impaired activities of daily living (ADL), other functional measures and global functional scores (p < 0.05). All methods independently predicted poor functional outcomes. External validation in CKD showed that the H/M method was either superior or comparable to other methods in identifying disabilities (e.g., predicting functional measures, AUC = 0.627, 95% CI = 0.582-0.672).
conclusionsThis study establishes an operational framework for GLIS using nationally representative data from China and validates its effectiveness in a clinical setting. LFR proves to be a feasible method for assessing MSS. The H/M method effectively captures functional impairment, which may serve as a useful approach for diagnosing sarcopenia. These findings provide actionable benchmarks for sarcopenia research and clinical practice, potentially informing more refined prevention and intervention strategies.
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.