SynthesisJournal of endocrinological investigation2026
Prevalence of osteosarcopenia in postmenopausal women: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of endocrinological investigation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOsteosarcopenia (OSP) is defined as the coexistence of osteoporosis (OP) and sarcopenia (SP), and is associated with increased risks of falls, fractures, and frailty. Postmenopausal women are particularly susceptible due to estrogen deficiency, however, its overall prevalence in this population remains unclear.
methodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis followed PRISMA guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251142908). PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to 15 October 2025. Eligible studies reported OSP prevalence (or data enabling its calculation) in postmenopausal women, with OP and SP defined by recognized criteria (WHO, EWGSOP, AWGS or equivalents). Two reviewers independently performed study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment using the JBI checklist. Pooled prevalence was estimated using generalized linear mixed models and random-effects meta-analysis with Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman adjustment. Heterogeneity, influence analyses, publication bias, and exploratory subgroup analyses by diagnostic criteria, economic level, geographic region, and population source were conducted. Meta-regression evaluated the effect of mean age.
resultsSixteen studies involving 7,631 postmenopausal women and 1,421 OSP cases were included. The pooled prevalence of OSP was 15.6% (95% CI: 9.6-24.3%; I²=97.1%). Using consistent criteria, prevalence was 20.1% (95% CI: 10.7-34.4%) for WHO + AWGS 2019 and 12.7% (95% CI: 2.3-47.5%) for WHO + EWGSOP 2018. Exploratory subgroup analyses showed higher prevalence estimates in developing versus developed regions (18.0% vs. 12.7%), Asian versus non-Asian countries (18.7% vs. 8.2%), and hospital-based versus community-based populations (26.4% vs. 8.7%). No significant study-level association between mean age and OSP prevalence was observed in meta-regression analyses based on the 14 studies with available mean age data. Most studies were of high quality, and no significant publication bias was detected.
conclusionThis meta-analysis found a pooled OSP prevalence of 15.6% among postmenopausal women across included studies. Given high heterogeneity, this estimate should be interpreted with caution, as it reflects diverse settings and diagnostic approaches. Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested higher prevalence in developing regions, Asian populations, and hospital‑based settings. Standardized criteria and integrated bone‑muscle assessment may improve early identification and management of OSP in this high-risk population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42258024What 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.