SynthesisFrontiers in public health2026
Comparative effectiveness of exercise modalities and nutritional supplementation for sarcopenic obesity in older adults: a network meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
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
Introduction: Sarcopenic obesity is highly prevalent among older adults and is associated with adverse clinical outcomes. However, direct comparative evidence on the relative efficacy and safety of different exercise-based rehabilitation strategies, with or without nutritional supplementation or high-protein intake, remains limited. This study aimed to compare and rank the effects of diverse rehabilitation interventions using a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Methods: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were systematically searched from database inception to November 1, 2025, without language restrictions. Both Medical Subject Headings and free-text terms were used. Primary outcomes included body mass index (BMI), handgrip strength (GRIP), fat mass (FM), percentage body fat (PBF), and skeletal muscle index (SMI). A systematic review and network meta-analysis were conducted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (ROB 2) tool, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using the CINeMA framework. The study protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251270452). Results: Twenty-four randomized controlled trials involving 1,298 participants and nine distinct exercise- and nutrition-related rehabilitation strategies were included. For BMI, only multicomponent training (MC) significantly reduced BMI compared with usual care (UC) (MD = -1.08, 95% CI -1.86 to -0.29) and ranked highest (SUCRA 85.1%). For handgrip strength, both resistance training (RT) (MD = 3.96, 95% CI 2.15-5.77) and MC (MD = 2.13, 95% CI 0.25-4.01) were superior to UC, with RT ranking first (SUCRA 90.9%). For fat mass, only RT significantly reduced FM compared with UC (MD = -2.30, 95% CI -3.63 to -0.98) and achieved the highest ranking (SUCRA 79.0%). For PBF, both MC (MD = -3.53, 95% CI -5.70 to -1.36) and RT (MD = -2.30, 95% CI -3.98 to -0.62) were effective, with MC ranking highest (SUCRA 77.1%). No intervention demonstrated a statistically significant advantage over UC for SMI; however, MC combined with nutritional supplementation ranked relatively favorably (SUCRA 74.1%). Global consistency testing supported overall network coherence. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the findings, and comparison-adjusted funnel plots indicated no clear evidence of publication bias. Conclusion: In older adults with sarcopenic obesity, exercise-centered interventions yield clinically meaningful benefits across several key rehabilitation outcomes. Overall, resistance training appears particularly effective for improving muscle strength and reducing adiposity-related measures, whereas multicomponent training shows greater advantages in reducing BMI and PBF. Evidence for improvements in SMI remains limited and uncertain, highlighting the need for larger, well-designed randomized trials with longer follow-up and direct head-to-head comparisons to clarify long-term benefits and identify optimal intervention combinations. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251270452, PROSPERO: CRD420251270452.
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.