27
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Global prevalence of sarcopenia and severe sarcopenia: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          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

          Background

          Sarcopenia is defined as the loss of muscle mass and strength. Despite the seriousness of this disease, a single diagnostic criterion has not yet been established. Few studies have reported the prevalence of sarcopenia globally, and there is a high level of heterogeneity between studies, stemmed from the diagnostic criteria of sarcopenia and the target population. The aims of this systematic review and meta‐analysis were (i) to identify and summarize the diagnostic criteria used to define sarcopenia and severe sarcopenia and (ii) to estimate the global and region‐specific prevalence of sarcopenia and severe sarcopenia by sociodemographic factors.

          Methods

          Embase, MEDLINE, and Web of Science Core Collections were searched using relevant MeSH terms. The inclusion criteria were cross‐sectional or cohort studies in individuals aged ≥18 years, published in English, and with muscle mass measured using dual‐energy x‐ray absorptiometry, bioelectrical impedance, or computed tomography (CT) scan. For the meta‐analysis, studies were stratified by diagnostic criteria (classifications), cut‐off points, and instruments to assess muscle mass. If at least three studies reported the same classification, cut‐off points, and instrument to measure muscle mass, they were considered suitable for meta‐analysis. Following this approach, 6 classifications and 23 subgroups were created. Overall pooled estimates with inverse‐variance weights obtained from a random‐effects model were estimated using the metaprop command in Stata.

          Results

          Out of 19 320 studies, 263 were eligible for the narrative synthesis and 151 for meta‐analysis (total n = 692 056, mean age: 68.5 years). Using different classifications and cut‐off points, the prevalence of sarcopenia varied between 10% and 27% in the studies included for meta‐analysis. The highest and lowest prevalence were observed in Oceania and Europe using the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP) and EWGSOP2, respectively. The prevalence ranged from 8% to 36% in individuals <60 years and from 10% to 27% in ≥60 years. Men had a higher prevalence of sarcopenia using the EWGSOP2 (11% vs. 2%) while it was higher in women using the International Working Group on Sarcopenia (17% vs. 12%). Finally, the prevalence of severe sarcopenia ranged from 2% to 9%.

          Conclusions

          The prevalence of sarcopenia and severe sarcopenia varied considerably according to the classification and cut‐off point used. Considering the lack of a single diagnostic for sarcopenia, future studies should adhere to current guidelines, which would facilitate the comparison of results between studies and populations across the globe.

          Related collections

          Most cited references36

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

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Sarcopenia: revised European consensus on definition and diagnosis

            Abstract Background in 2010, the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP) published a sarcopenia definition that aimed to foster advances in identifying and caring for people with sarcopenia. In early 2018, the Working Group met again (EWGSOP2) to update the original definition in order to reflect scientific and clinical evidence that has built over the last decade. This paper presents our updated findings. Objectives to increase consistency of research design, clinical diagnoses and ultimately, care for people with sarcopenia. Recommendations sarcopenia is a muscle disease (muscle failure) rooted in adverse muscle changes that accrue across a lifetime; sarcopenia is common among adults of older age but can also occur earlier in life. In this updated consensus paper on sarcopenia, EWGSOP2: (1) focuses on low muscle strength as a key characteristic of sarcopenia, uses detection of low muscle quantity and quality to confirm the sarcopenia diagnosis, and identifies poor physical performance as indicative of severe sarcopenia; (2) updates the clinical algorithm that can be used for sarcopenia case-finding, diagnosis and confirmation, and severity determination and (3) provides clear cut-off points for measurements of variables that identify and characterise sarcopenia. Conclusions EWGSOP2's updated recommendations aim to increase awareness of sarcopenia and its risk. With these new recommendations, EWGSOP2 calls for healthcare professionals who treat patients at risk for sarcopenia to take actions that will promote early detection and treatment. We also encourage more research in the field of sarcopenia in order to prevent or delay adverse health outcomes that incur a heavy burden for patients and healthcare systems.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Sarcopenia: European consensus on definition and diagnosis

              The European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP) developed a practical clinical definition and consensus diagnostic criteria for age-related sarcopenia. EWGSOP included representatives from four participant organisations, i.e. the European Geriatric Medicine Society, the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism, the International Association of Gerontology and Geriatrics—European Region and the International Association of Nutrition and Aging. These organisations endorsed the findings in the final document. The group met and addressed the following questions, using the medical literature to build evidence-based answers: (i) What is sarcopenia? (ii) What parameters define sarcopenia? (iii) What variables reflect these parameters, and what measurement tools and cut-off points can be used? (iv) How does sarcopenia relate to cachexia, frailty and sarcopenic obesity? For the diagnosis of sarcopenia, EWGSOP recommends using the presence of both low muscle mass + low muscle function (strength or performance). EWGSOP variously applies these characteristics to further define conceptual stages as ‘presarcopenia’, ‘sarcopenia’ and ‘severe sarcopenia’. EWGSOP reviewed a wide range of tools that can be used to measure the specific variables of muscle mass, muscle strength and physical performance. Our paper summarises currently available data defining sarcopenia cut-off points by age and gender; suggests an algorithm for sarcopenia case finding in older individuals based on measurements of gait speed, grip strength and muscle mass; and presents a list of suggested primary and secondary outcome domains for research. Once an operational definition of sarcopenia is adopted and included in the mainstream of comprehensive geriatric assessment, the next steps are to define the natural course of sarcopenia and to develop and define effective treatment.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                carlos.celis@glasgow.ac.uk
                Journal
                J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle
                J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle
                10.1007/13539.2190-6009
                JCSM
                Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                2190-5991
                2190-6009
                23 November 2021
                February 2022
                : 13
                : 1 ( doiID: 10.1002/jcsm.v13.1 )
                : 86-99
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Institute of Health and Wellbeing University of Glasgow Glasgow UK
                [ 2 ] British Heart Foundation Glasgow Cardiovascular Research Centre, Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences University of Glasgow Glasgow UK
                [ 3 ] Facultad de Medicina Universidad Diego Portales Santiago Chile
                [ 4 ] Department of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences Northumbria University Newcastle UK
                [ 5 ] Centre of Exercise Physiology Research (CIFE) Universidad Mayor Santiago Chile
                [ 6 ] Laboratorio de Rendimiento Humano, Grupo de Estudio en Educación, Actividad Física y Salud (GEEAFyS) Universidad Católica del Maule Talca Chile
                Author notes
                [*] [* ]Correspondence to: Dr Carlos Celis‐Morales, British Heart Foundation Glasgow Cardiovascular Research Centre, Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8TA, UK. Phone: + 44 141 3304201, Email: carlos.celis@ 123456glasgow.ac.uk
                [†]

                These authors are first joint authors.

                [‡]

                These authors are joint senior authors.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4384-4962
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8969-9636
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7190-9025
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8898-7035
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2612-3917
                Article
                JCSM12783 JCSM-D-20-00730
                10.1002/jcsm.12783
                8818604
                34816624
                a426e0db-67f6-4650-9f1e-c720a3d8e8ba
                © 2021 The Authors. Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society on Sarcopenia, Cachexia and Wasting Disorders.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

                History
                : 31 May 2021
                : 22 December 2020
                : 02 August 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 7, Tables: 1, Pages: 14, Words: 5739
                Funding
                Funded by: Chilean Government , doi 10.13039/501100020884;
                Award ID: 72190067
                Categories
                Review
                Reviews
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                February 2022
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.1.1 mode:remove_FC converted:06.02.2022

                Orthopedics
                sarcopenia,prevalence,systematic review,meta‐analysis
                Orthopedics
                sarcopenia, prevalence, systematic review, meta‐analysis

                Comments

                Comment on this article