Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
56
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Sarcopenia and its association with falls and fractures in older adults: 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

          Sarcopenia is a potentially modifiable risk factor for falls and fractures in older adults, but the strength of the association between sarcopenia, falls, and fractures is unclear. This study aims to systematically assess the literature and perform a meta‐analysis of the association between sarcopenia with falls and fractures among older adults. A literature search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and CINAHL from inception to May 2018. Inclusion criteria were the following: published in English, mean/median age ≥ 65 years, sarcopenia diagnosis (based on definitions used by the original studies' authors), falls and/or fractures outcomes, and any study population. Pooled analyses were conducted of the associations of sarcopenia with falls and fractures, expressed in odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup analyses were performed by study design, population, sex, sarcopenia definition, continent, and study quality. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 statistics. The search identified 2771 studies. Thirty‐six studies (52 838 individuals, 48.8% females, and mean age of the study populations ranging from 65.0 to 86.7 years) were included in the systematic review. Four studies reported on both falls and fractures. Ten out of 22 studies reported a significantly higher risk of falls in sarcopenic compared with non‐sarcopenic individuals; 11 out of 19 studies showed a significant positive association with fractures. Thirty‐three studies (45 926 individuals) were included in the meta‐analysis. Sarcopenic individuals had a significant higher risk of falls (cross‐sectional studies: OR 1.60; 95% CI 1.37–1.86, P < 0.001, I 2 = 34%; prospective studies: OR 1.89; 95% CI 1.33–2.68, P < 0.001, I 2 = 37%) and fractures (cross‐sectional studies: OR 1.84; 95% CI 1.30–2.62, P = 0.001, I 2 = 91%; prospective studies: OR 1.71; 95% CI 1.44–2.03, P = 0.011, I 2 = 0%) compared with non‐sarcopenic individuals. This was independent of study design, population, sex, sarcopenia definition, continent, and study quality. The positive association between sarcopenia with falls and fractures in older adults strengthens the need to invest in sarcopenia prevention and interventions to evaluate its effect on falls and fractures.

          Related collections

          Most cited references63

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

          Newcastle-Ottawa Scale: comparing reviewers’ to authors’ assessments

          Background Lack of appropriate reporting of methodological details has previously been shown to distort risk of bias assessments in randomized controlled trials. The same might be true for observational studies. The goal of this study was to compare the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) assessment for risk of bias between reviewers and authors of cohort studies included in a published systematic review on risk factors for severe outcomes in patients infected with influenza. Methods Cohort studies included in the systematic review and published between 2008–2011 were included. The corresponding or first authors completed a survey covering all NOS items. Results were compared with the NOS assessment applied by reviewers of the systematic review. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using kappa (K) statistics. Results Authors of 65/182 (36%) studies completed the survey. The overall NOS score was significantly higher (p < 0.001) in the reviewers’ assessment (median = 6; interquartile range [IQR] 6–6) compared with those by authors (median = 5, IQR 4–6). Inter-rater reliability by item ranged from slight (K = 0.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] = −0.19, 0.48) to poor (K = −0.06, 95% CI = −0.22, 0.10). Reliability for the overall score was poor (K = −0.004, 95% CI = −0.11, 0.11). Conclusions Differences in assessment and low agreement between reviewers and authors suggest the need to contact authors for information not published in studies when applying the NOS in systematic reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Epidemiology of sarcopenia among the elderly in New Mexico.

            Muscle mass decreases with age, leading to "sarcopenia," or low relative muscle mass, in elderly people. Sarcopenia is believed to be associated with metabolic, physiologic, and functional impairments and disability. Methods of estimating the prevalence of sarcopenia and its associated risks in elderly populations are lacking. Data from a population-based survey of 883 elderly Hispanic and non-Hispanic white men and women living in New Mexico (the New Mexico Elder Health Survey, 1993-1995) were analyzed to develop a method for estimating the prevalence of sarcopenia. An anthropometric equation for predicting appendicular skeletal muscle mass was developed from a random subsample (n = 199) of participants and was extended to the total sample. Sarcopenia was defined as appendicular skeletal muscle mass (kg)/height2 (m2) being less than two standard deviations below the mean of a young reference group. Prevalences increased from 13-24% in persons under 70 years of age to >50% in persons over 80 years of age, and were slightly greater in Hispanics than in non-Hispanic whites. Sarcopenia was significantly associated with self-reported physical disability in both men and women, independent of ethnicity, age, morbidity, obesity, income, and health behaviors. This study provides some of the first estimates of the extent of the public health problem posed by sarcopenia.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis.

              Although it is widely recommended that clinical trials undergo some type of quality review, the number and variety of quality assessment scales that exist make it unclear how to achieve the best assessment. To determine whether the type of quality assessment scale used affects the conclusions of meta-analytic studies. Meta-analysis of 17 trials comparing low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) with standard heparin for prevention of postoperative thrombosis using 25 different scales to identify high-quality trials. The association between treatment effect and summary scores and the association with 3 key domains (concealment of treatment allocation, blinding of outcome assessment, and handling of withdrawals) were examined in regression models. Pooled relative risks of deep vein thrombosis with LMWH vs standard heparin in high-quality vs low-quality trials as determined by 25 quality scales. Pooled relative risks from high-quality trials ranged from 0.63 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.90) to 0.90 (95% CI, 0.67-1.21) vs 0.52 (95% CI, 0.24-1.09) to 1.13 (95% CI, 0.70-1.82) for low-quality trials. For 6 scales, relative risks of high-quality trials were close to unity, indicating that LMWH was not significantly superior to standard heparin, whereas low-quality trials showed better protection with LMWH (P<.05). Seven scales showed the opposite: high quality trials showed an effect whereas low quality trials did not. For the remaining 12 scales, effect estimates were similar in the 2 quality strata. In regression analysis, summary quality scores were not significantly associated with treatment effects. There was no significant association of treatment effects with allocation concealment and handling of withdrawals. Open outcome assessment, however, influenced effect size with the effect of LMWH, on average, being exaggerated by 35% (95% CI, 1%-57%; P= .046). Our data indicate that the use of summary scores to identify trials of high quality is problematic. Relevant methodological aspects should be assessed individually and their influence on effect sizes explored.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                andrea.maier@unimelb.edu.au
                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
                16 April 2019
                June 2019
                : 10
                : 3 ( doiID: 10.1002/jcsm.v10.3 )
                : 485-500
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Department of Human Movement Sciences, @AgeAmsterdam, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Amsterdam Movement Sciences Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam The Netherlands
                [ 2 ] Department of Medicine and Aged Care, @AgeMelbourne, The Royal Melbourne Hospital The University of Melbourne Melbourne Victoria Australia
                [ 3 ] Department of Internal Medicine, Section of Gerontology and Geriatrics, Amsterdam UMC Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam The Netherlands
                [ 4 ] Department of Internal Medicine, Amstelland Hospital Amstelveen The Netherlands
                [ 5 ] Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Amsterdam UMC Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Amsterdam The Netherlands
                Author notes
                [*] [* ]Correspondence to: Andrea B. Maier, @Age, Department of Medicine and Aged Care, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, The University of Melbourne, City Campus, Level 6 North, 300 Grattan Street, Parkville, Victoria 3050, Australia. Phone: +61 3 9342 2635, Fax: +61 3 9342 7866, Email: andrea.maier@ 123456unimelb.edu.au
                [†]

                Authors contributed equally to the work.

                Article
                JCSM12411 JCSM-D-18-00305
                10.1002/jcsm.12411
                6596401
                30993881
                c94b579c-3c13-4917-8fe6-2cf34fb5fbc6
                © 2019 The Authors. Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the 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
                : 16 September 2018
                : 27 January 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 2, Pages: 16, Words: 3859
                Funding
                Funded by: European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme
                Award ID: 689238
                Award ID: 675003
                Categories
                Review
                Reviews
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                jcsm12411
                June 2019
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_NLMPMC version:5.6.5 mode:remove_FC converted:10.07.2019

                Orthopedics
                sarcopenia,falls,fractures,meta‐analysis
                Orthopedics
                sarcopenia, falls, fractures, meta‐analysis

                Comments

                Comment on this article