SynthesisThe Indian journal of medical research2026
Prevalence and diagnostic variability of sarcopenia in India: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in The Indian journal of medical research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objectives Sarcopenia is a recognised determinant of adverse health outcomes yet remains insufficiently quantified in India. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the prevalence of sarcopenia and document the diagnostic criteria used across community and hospital-based populations in India. Methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus databases from their inception to December 2, 2025 (PROSPERO registration: CRD420251252940). Cross-sectional and cohort studies reporting prevalence were included. The primary outcome was the prevalence of different types of sarcopenias (probable, confirmed, or severe). Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool. Pooled prevalence with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was calculated using a random-effects model in R software. Results Of the 5,486 records retrieved, we included 44 studies for final review. Consensus-based definitions, such as Asian and European working group criteria, were used in 54.5% (n= 24) studies, while the remaining used heterogeneous, nonuniform operational criteria. The pooled prevalence of probable, confirmed, and severe sarcopenia was 36.3% (95% CI: 26-48%, 18 studies), 35.4% (95% CI: 28.8-42.5%, 38 studies), and 9.9% (95% CI: 5.6-16.7%, 11 studies), respectively. Interpretation and conclusions Over one in three individuals in India had sarcopenia. We documented an inconsistency in diagnostic criteria across studies, limiting comparability and hindering accurate burden estimation. Our review recommends the need for standardised, setting-specific definitions to enable timely identification, and strengthen evidence-informed public health planning in India.
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.