13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The magnitude and progress of lean body mass, fat‐free mass, and skeletal muscle mass loss following bariatric surgery: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          <p id="d2799333e269">Postbariatric loss of muscle tissue could negatively affect long‐term health due to its role in various bodily processes, such as metabolism and functional capacity. This meta‐analysis aimed to unravel time‐dependent changes in the magnitude and progress of lean body mass (LBM), fat‐free mass (FFM), and skeletal muscle mass (SMM) loss following bariatric surgery. A systematic literature search was conducted in Pubmed, Embase, and Web of Science. Fifty‐nine studies assessed LBM ( <i>n</i> = 37), FFM ( <i>n</i> = 20), or SMM ( <i>n</i> = 3) preoperatively and ≥1 time points postsurgery. Random‐effects meta‐analyses were performed to determine pooled loss per outcome parameter and follow‐up time point. At 12‐month postsurgery, pooled LBM loss was −8.13 kg [95%CI −9.01; −7.26]. FFM loss and SMM loss were −8.23 kg [95%CI −10.74; −5.73] and −3.18 kg [95%CI −5.64; −0.71], respectively. About 55% of 12‐month LBM loss occurred within 3‐month postsurgery, followed by a more gradual decrease up to 12 months. Similar patterns were seen for FFM and SMM. In conclusion, &gt;8 kg of LBM and FFM loss was observed within 1‐year postsurgery. LBM, FFM, and SMM were predominantly lost within 3‐month postsurgery, highlighting that interventions to mitigate such losses should be implemented perioperatively. </p>

          Related collections

          Most cited references105

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies

            Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study’s generalizability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies. We convened a two-day workshop, in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Health Outcomes of Sarcopenia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

              Objective The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review to assess the short-, middle- and long-term consequences of sarcopenia. Methods Prospective studies assessing the consequences of sarcopenia were searched across different electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EBM Reviews ACP Journal Club, EBM Reviews DARE and AMED). Only studies that used the definition of the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People to diagnose sarcopenia were included. Study selection and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers. For outcomes reported by three or more studies, a meta-analysis was performed. The study results are expressed as odds ratios (OR) with 95% CI. Results Of the 772 references identified through the database search, 17 were included in this systematic review. The number of participants in the included studies ranged from 99 to 6658, and the duration of follow-up varied from 3 months to 9.8 years. Eleven out of 12 studies assessed the impact of sarcopenia on mortality. The results showed a higher rate of mortality among sarcopenic subjects (pooled OR of 3.596 (95% CI 2.96–4.37)). The effect was higher in people aged 79 years or older compared with younger subjects (p = 0.02). Sarcopenia is also associated with functional decline (pooled OR of 6 studies 3.03 (95% CI 1.80–5.12)), a higher rate of falls (2/2 studies found a significant association) and a higher incidence of hospitalizations (1/1 study). The impact of sarcopenia on the incidence of fractures and the length of hospital stay was less clear (only 1/2 studies showed an association for both outcomes). Conclusion Sarcopenia is associated with several harmful outcomes, making this geriatric syndrome a real public health burden.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Obesity Reviews
                Obesity Reviews
                Wiley
                1467-7881
                1467-789X
                January 2022
                October 19 2021
                January 2022
                : 23
                : 1
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Department of Physiology Radboud University Medical Center Nijmegen The Netherlands
                [2 ]Nederlandse Obesitas Kliniek Huis ter Heide The Netherlands
                [3 ]Departement of Surgery Rijnstate Hospital/Vitalys Clinics Arnhem The Netherlands
                Article
                10.1111/obr.13370
                2090b33a-9ffa-48a6-9880-668028c29f23
                © 2022

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

                http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article