ArticleBMJ open2026
Global prevalence and risk factors of probable sarcopenia in older adults: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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
introductionWith the acceleration of the global ageing trend, sarcopenia has become a major public health problem. Probable sarcopenia, characterised primarily by decreased muscle strength, represents an early, potentially reversible stage. However, epidemiological evidence on the prevalence and risk factors of probable sarcopenia in older populations remains limited, scattered, and methodologically inconsistent. Therefore, systematic reviews and meta-analyses are needed to synthesise current data, quantify global and regional prevalence, identify associated risk factors, and explore sources of heterogeneity. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols 2020 and Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodologies, this review will include observational studies that define probable sarcopenia according to recognised consensus criteria (European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People 2 and Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia 2). Comprehensive searches of eleven English and Chinese databases (Web of Science, PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, CENTRAL, CINAHL, CBM, CNKI, WANFANG, and VIP) will be conducted from inception to January 2026. Two reviewers will independently screen, extract, and appraise studies using JBI tools. Random-effects meta-analyses will be used to estimate global and regional prevalence and to synthesise the available evidence on associated risk factors. Pre-specified subgroup and meta-regression analyses will be undertaken to explore potential sources of heterogeneity across diagnostic criteria, geographical regions, and population characteristics. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was not required for this protocol. The results of the final review will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420251153142.
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.