ReviewCureus2025
The Impact of Nutritional Supplements on Sarcopenia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Exercise and nutritional interventions for sarcopenia-related fall prevention in older adults: An umbrella review.The journal of nutrition, health & aging · 2026Pooled it
- Muscle Matters: Dietary Supplement Use and Sarcopenia Risk.Geriatrics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Circulating selectins as potential biomarkers for sarcopenia: a case-control study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- The role of protein quality and amino acid composition in preventing sarcopenia and functional decline in older adults.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Review
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
Sarcopenia is characterized by progressive loss of muscle mass, strength, and function, and poses a major risk for permanent disability and poor quality of life in elderly patients. Nutritional supplements have been proposed as a potential intervention; however, findings in the literature have been inconsistent, necessitating a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. Therefore, the present review aimed to assess the impact of nutritional supplements on the progression and management of sarcopenia-associated problems, such as muscle mass, strength, and function. A comprehensive literature search was performed on different electronic databases, such as PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, The Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. Studies assessing the impact of nutritional supplements on muscle mass and strength functions in sarcopenia patients were included. Narrative synthesis was performed for the presentation of the general characteristics of studies, interventions, and outcomes, while meta-analysis was performed using the random effect model via RevMan 5.4 at the significance level of 0.05. Funnel plots were used for the interpretation of publication bias, methodological quality assessment of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias-2.0 (RoB 2) assessment tool, and certainty of evidence using the GRADE (Grading, Reporting, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) framework. After screening, 28 studies were included in the review, which focused on nutritional supplements containing protein, amino acids, vitamin D, creatine, omega-3, vitamin B12, zinc, magnesium, and other nutrients. These supplements demonstrated significant differences in improving handgrip strength [std. mean difference (MD): -0.10, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.21 to 0.00, p=0.05, I
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.