ReviewEuropean geriatric medicine2026
Diagnostic uncertainty in respiratory sarcopenia: accuracy of available tests and clinical implications: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in European geriatric 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeRespiratory sarcopenia (RS) is an emerging clinical condition associated with pneumonia and mortality, but its diagnosis remains uncertain because standardized criteria are lacking. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR), maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP), and maximal expiratory pressure (MEP) for identifying RS in older adults.
methodsEight databases were systematically searched for studies involving adults aged ≥60 years. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2. Test-specific and overall pooled sensitivity and specificity were calculated for PEFR, MIP, and MEP according to the operational definitions adopted by the primary studies.
resultsSeven studies comprising 2,466 participants were included (mean age range, 70.2-80.6 years). Overall pooled sensitivity was 0.614 (95% CI 0.453-0.753) and specificity was 0.726 (95% CI 0.443-0.898), with substantial heterogeneity (bivariate I
conclusionRespiratory muscle-related measures show variable diagnostic performance for identifying RS. Current evidence is insufficient to establish the superiority of any single test or recommend a clinical reference standard. Prospective multicenter studies using standardized criteria and diverse populations, together with international consensus on RS definition, are needed to support future clinical recommendations. REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO-CRD42023494910.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42873466What 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.