ArticleBMC geriatrics2026
Transition between 2019 and 2025 sarcopenia definitions by the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia in community-dwelling older adults.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 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.
- Clinical Implications of the AWGS 2025 Sarcopenia Criteria in a Large Cohort of Community-Dwelling Thai Older Adults.Annals of geriatric medicine and research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia (AWGS) has revised its diagnostic criteria over time, most recently in 2025. The impact of these updates on sarcopenia classification in real-world Asian populations has not been fully established. This study compared the characteristics and diagnostic transitions of community-dwelling older adults between the 2019 and 2025 definitions.
methodsWe conducted a secondary analysis of a nationwide epidemiological study of community-dwelling Thai adults aged ≥ 60 years. Muscle mass was measured using bioelectrical impedance analysis, handgrip strength with a digital dynamometer and physical performance using gait speed, five-times sit-to-stand and timed up-and-go tests. Sarcopenia was classified according to AWGS 2019 and 2025 definitions. Diagnostic transitions between the 2019 and 2025 criteria were visualized using a Sankey diagram. Characteristics and functional measures were then compared between concordant and reclassified groups.
resultsFrom overall 2,456 subjects (Male: Female = 894: 1,562), sarcopenia prevalence increased following the AWGS definition update (18.1% in 2019 vs. 28.3% in 2025; p < 0.001). The AWGS 2025 definition identified more individuals with higher BMI and those aged < 65 years, while functional profiles remained comparable to those identified by the 2019 definition. For possible sarcopenia, prevalence decreased substantially under AWGS 2025 compared with AWGS 2019 (51.2% vs. 93.7%; p < 0.001). Diagnostic transition analysis showed that 14.9% of participants were newly classified as sarcopenic under AWGS 2025, while 4.7% were reclassified as non-sarcopenia. Characteristics and functional profiles of the reclassified sarcopenia group were similar to the concordant sarcopenia group, though long-term clinical outcomes remain to be established. Participants reclassified to non-sarcopenia showed no clear distinction from either concordant group, signaling potential diagnostic overlap at the margins.
conclusionsThe AWGS 2025 criteria identify a broader population with sarcopenia, including younger individuals and those with higher BMI, while remaining largely consistent with the AWGS 2019 diagnostic definition. While these similarities suggest that the updated framework may enhance sensitivity to detect individuals with underlying vulnerabilities, further prospective studies are required to determine if these newly captured individuals experience true, long-term adverse clinical outcomes or if this expansion introduces a risk of diagnostic overcounting. The observed ambiguity in those reclassified as non-sarcopenic further highlights that while the updated framework may improve practical applicability, a clear line between high-risk phenotype and overdiagnosis remains difficult to draw using cross-sectional indices alone. The findings of this study are limited to individuals aged ≥ 60 years, and the application of the 2025 criteria to younger populations requires further investigation. Longitudinal studies are also needed to refine age-specific cut-offs and to clarify the clinical significance of individuals near diagnostic thresholds.
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.