SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2025
Risk prediction models for sarcopenia in elderly people: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prediction models for sarcopenia in older adults in China: a scoping review.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Pragmatic Screening for Sarcopenia in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Development and Internal Validation of a Prospective Risk Model Integrating T12 CT Indices and Routine Clinical Variables.Cancer medicine · 2026Article
- Machine learning evaluation of the discriminative ability of Castelli Risk Index-I and other non-traditional lipid indices for sarcopenia: a cross-sectional study based on CHARLS.Lipids in health and disease · 2026Article
- Circulating selectins as potential biomarkers for sarcopenia: a case-control study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Hierarchical Evaluation of Predictive Models for Confirmed Sarcopenia: Discrimination, Calibration, and Clinical Applicability in a Cross-Sectional Study of Older Adults.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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aims to systematically review and evaluate risk prediction models for sarcopenia in older adults. The goal is to offer a reference for clinicians in selecting or developing suitable sarcopenia risk prediction models for the elderly. Methods: A systematic search was performed across CNKI, Wanfang Database, VIP Database, SinoMed, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for studies on risk prediction models of sarcopenia in older adults. The time frame for the search was from the creation of these databases to 13 August 2024. The literature was independently vetted by two researchers, who also gathered data and assessed the included studies' applicability and bias risk. Results: A total of 29 studies with 70 sarcopenia prediction models were included, with a total sample size of 140,386 and 13,472 sarcopenia events. Frequently reported independent predictors in multivariate models included BMI, age, and gender. Meta-analysis showed a combined AUC of 0.9125 [95% CI (0.9254-0.8996)], indicating good overall model predictive performance. Issues in modeling included inappropriate predictive factor screening methods, insufficient sample sizes, and lack of external validation, resulting in high study bias risk and limited model generalizability. Conclusion: Current elderly sarcopenia risk prediction models have considerable room for improvement in overall quality and applicability. Future modeling should follow PROBAST guidelines to reduce bias risk, incorporate predictive factors with theoretical foundation and clinical significance, and strengthen external validation. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/Diew/CRD42025636116, identifier CRD42025636116.
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.