SynthesisBMJ open2024
Sarcopenia in systemic sclerosis: prevalence and impact-a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reduced serum Irisin levels in systemic sclerosis: a cross-sectional case-control study.Clinical rheumatology · 2026Article
- Validity of Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis for the Assessment of Body Composition in Patients With Systemic Sclerosis.Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle · 2026Article
- Circulating selectins as potential biomarkers for sarcopenia: a case-control study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Multimodal ultrasound in the assessment of muscle involvement in systemic sclerosis patients: results from a bicentric study.Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- Sarcopenia in Rheumatic Diseases: A Hidden Issue of Concern.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Assessment of Factors Related to Sarcopenia in Patients with Systemic Sclerosis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis review aims to provide an estimate of sarcopenia prevalence and its impact on clinical characteristics in patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc).
designSystematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Embase, Medline, Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systemically searched from inception to 24 May 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: We included observational studies that reported the prevalence of sarcopenia in patients with SSc. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently performed study selection and data extraction using standardised methods. Risk of bias was assessed using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Scale and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Meta-analysis was conducted using random effects models.
resultsA total of 4583 articles were screened and 9 studies with data from 815 patients were included in the analysis (8 cross-sectional studies and 1 retrospective cohort study). The overall prevalence of sarcopenia in patients with SSc was 22% (95% CI 17% to 28%). Patients with SSc with sarcopenia had a poorer quality of life (mean difference -12.02; 95% CI -19.11 to -4.93) and higher C reactive protein (CRP) levels (standardised mean difference 0.67; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.00).
conclusionsSarcopenia is common in patients with SSc. Patients with SSc with sarcopenia had a worse quality of life and higher CRP levels, based on our findings. Given the detrimental impact of sarcopenia on quality of life, future efforts aimed at early identification of sarcopenia in the clinical assessment of patients with SSc may have significance. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022368326.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.