SynthesisThe journal of nutrition, health & aging2026
Outcomes in clinical trials on sarcopenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in The journal of nutrition, health & aging, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
backgroundIn order to improve the quality and comparability of intervention studies, common endpoints have gained significance. The European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) consensus paper identified suitable endpoints for trials investigating the treatment of sarcopenia. With the help of a systematic review, we analyzed which endpoints have been used in randomized controlled intervention trials investigating the treatment of sarcopenia to date, to what extent these correspond to the recommended endpoints of the ESCEO consensus and whether minimal clinically important differences (MCID) were defined. Based on these identified endpoints we also aimed to identify which type of intervention may be most effective in enhancing the investigated endpoint.
methodsA systematic search (PROSPERO ID: CRD42023468128) was carried out in various databases (PubMed, Embase, PsychInfo, Web of Science, Trial Registers) to find studies meeting the following criteria for further analysis: randomized controlled trials (RCTs), geriatric study population, sarcopenia (including probable sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity), intervention study, published until October 2023 and written in English. The meta-analysis was conducted for the most common outcomes.
resultsNinety publications met the criteria and were analyzed as full texts. The 90 intervention studies used a variety of different diagnostic criteria, intervention types and study settings. Measures of physical performance/strength (85 trials) and body composition (77 trials) were the most commonly used outcomes; in 74 studies, both outcome categories were used. Quality of Life was used in only 13 studies. In all categories, a very high heterogeneity between the measures was found and MCIDs were only rarely defined. Meta-analysis showed significant moderate intervention effects for the Timed-Up and Go-Test (TUG) and appendicular skeletal muscle index (ASMI), Handgrip strength and Chair Rise Test (CRT). The Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) showed no significant effects.
conclusionOur results highlight the heterogeneity among sarcopenia intervention studies, which impairs the comparability regarding the efficiency of different interventions. However, our findings support the need for core outcomes or pre-defined common endpoints, for which the updated ESCEO recommendations can serve as a solid basis. Nevertheless, more consistent data are needed to enable a proper meta-analysis.
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.