ReviewFrontiers in medicine2026
Application and evidence gaps of sarcopenia diagnostic criteria in patients with heart failure: a scoping review.
Review in Frontiers in medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Diagnostic criteria for sarcopenia show heterogeneity in patients with heart failure (HF). This study reviews existing evidence through a scoping review. Methods: We searched six databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure [CNKI], and Wanfang) from inception to May 2026. Two reviewers screened literature and extracted data independently. We used narrative synthesis. Results: We included 23 studies covering 8 diagnostic criteria. The Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia (AWGS) 2019 (9 studies) and the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People 2 (EWGSOP2) (7 studies) were most common. The overall prevalence ranged from 8.9% to 65.8%, with wide variation within the same criterion. Only 3 studies performed head-to-head comparisons. Heart failure-specific factors (edema interference, New York Heart Association [NYHA] class limitation, timing of assessment in acute phase) received limited attention. No study assessed sarcopenia at acute decompensation before diuresis. One study evaluated patients with stage B HF, generally considered pre-HF, and was interpreted separately. Eleven studies reported prognostic associations, yet only 1 reported discrimination and reclassification metrics such as concordance index (C-index), net reclassification improvement (NRI), and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI). External validation of diagnostic and prognostic performance was insufficient. Conclusion: Current evidence does not support a unified heart failure-specific diagnostic framework for sarcopenia. Future work should include multicenter prospective cohort studies to establish HF-specific cut-off values, develop assessment protocols for acute decompensated HF and NYHA class IV patients, and conduct large-sample external validation of diagnostic and prognostic performance.
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.