https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4681-984X
Figures
Abstract
Objective
The relationship between low skeletal muscle mass index (SMI) and all-cause mortality risk in the general adults remains unclear. Our study was conducted to examine and quantify the associations between low SMI and all-cause mortality risks.
Methods
PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for primary data sources and references to relevant publications retrieved until 1 April 2023. A random-effect model, subgroup analyses, meta-regression, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias were conducted using STATA 16.0.
Results
Sixteen prospective studies were included in the meta-analysis of low SMI and the risk of all-cause mortality. A total of 11696 deaths were ascertained among 81358 participants during the 3 to 14.4 years follow-up. The pooled RR of all-cause mortality risk was 1.57 (95% CI, 1.25 to 1.96, P < 0.001) across the lowest to the normal muscle mass category. The results of meta-regression showed that BMI (P = 0.086) might be sources of heterogeneity between studies. Subgroup analysis showed that low SMI was significantly associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality in studies with a body mass index (BMI) between 18.5 to 25 (1.34, 95% CI, 1.24–1.45, P<0.001), 25 to 30 (1.91, 95% CI, 1.16–3.15, P = 0.011), and over 30 (2.58, 95% CI, 1.20–5.54 P = 0.015).
Conclusions
Low SMI was significantly associated with the increased risk of all-cause mortality, and the risk of all-cause mortality associated with low SMI was higher in adults with a higher BMI. Low SMI Prevention and treatment might be significant for reducing mortality risk and promoting healthy longevity.
Citation: Wang Y, Luo D, Liu J, Song Y, Jiang B, Jiang H (2023) Low skeletal muscle mass index and all-cause mortality risk in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. PLoS ONE 18(6): e0286745. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286745
Editor: Yosuke Yamada, National Institute of Biomedical Innovation Health and Nutrition, JAPAN
Received: March 11, 2023; Accepted: May 22, 2023; Published: June 7, 2023
Copyright: © 2023 Wang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.
Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Introduction
Skeletal muscles were the largest organs in the human body, accounting for roughly 20–40% of total body weight in women and 30–50% in males and functioning as the largest body protein reservoir [1], which was crucial to human health [2]. There was evidence that skeletal muscle mass declined with age [3]. At the age of 30, inactive individuals began to experience a steady loss in skeletal muscle mass, and the rate of deterioration of skeletal muscle mass got more pronounced after the age of 60 [4, 5]. This might not only lead to sarcopenia, a multifactorial syndrome defined as a disease [6], but also increase the incidence rate and mortality [7]. Sarcopenia was a sickness defined by a loss of skeletal muscle mass and strength that could raise the risk of physical disability, chronic diseases such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease [8], and it was highly linked to mortality in older adults [9]. It is not surprising that the age-related reduction in muscle mass has become a major global health concern, given the growing global population of older people.
Indeed, clinical research has identified low skeletal muscle mass as an independent predictor of mortality in chronic diseases such as chronic liver disease [10], cardiovascular diseases [11], and end-stage renal failure [12], and poor skeletal muscle mass is predictive of negative surgical outcomes in elderly individuals with cancer [13, 14]. The links between skeletal muscle mass decline and all-cause mortality in the general population are now equivocal despite the accumulation of evidence. The results of studies examining the relationships between muscle mass or sarcopenia and mortality are inconclusive. Recently, several studies have found that assessing muscle strength, as opposed to muscle mass, was more important [15, 16]. Others indicate that muscle mass is predictive of adverse outcomes and mortality [17–19], which may have been due to the wide variety of muscle mass testing technologies and different muscle mass indexes.
To the best of our knowledge, no available systematic review and meta-analysis were found on the relationship of low skeletal muscle mass index (SMI) with all-cause mortality in the general population. Previous relevant studies often focused on the elderly [20] or diseased populations [21–23]. It is commonly recognized that skeletal muscle and healthy aging are tightly associated. Thus, it is essential to identify the risk of all-cause mortality attributable to low SMI among the general population. In this study, we aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies to investigate the association between low SMI and all-cause mortality risk among adults.
Methods
This study was registered on PROSPERO (ID: CRD42022343325). The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines were used to conduct this meta-analysis [24].
Search strategy
The PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were scoured for relevant publications until 1 April 2023. S1 Table outlines the search approach in detail. We also ran a thorough search for pertinent article reference lists.
Study selection
In the first search, two authors (Yahai Wang and Donglin Luo) independently assessed titles and abstracts before reviewing the full-text of all eligible publications. The third author (Jiahao Liu) mediated the disagreements in order to establish a consensus. We considered prospective cohort studies that assessed the association between skeletal mass index and mortality in the general population. These were the inclusion criteria for this review: (1) The study design was a prospective cohort study; (2) the exposure of interest was skeletal muscle mass index (SMI); (3) the outcome was all-cause mortality; and (4) the researchers reported relative risk (RR), hazard ratio (HR), or odds ratio (OR) of outcome risk along with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In the meantime, the exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) participants were not recruited from an overall healthy population; and (2) reviews, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), case-control studies, retrospective cohort studies, nonhuman studies, non-English studies, and letters lacking sufficient data were excluded. In the event of numerous reports from the same study, only those with the longest follow-up and the biggest sample size were considered.
Data extraction
The process of data extraction was carried out by two trained researchers. The data from each qualifying study were extracted onto a standard form, which included the surname of the first author, publication year, study design, study location, sample size (total sample/number of deaths), mean age, follow-up years, body mass index (BMI) of participants, the method used for assessment of SMI (e.g., dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), bioimpedance analysis (BIA), anthropometry, computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)), predictors reported for SMI (equals to ASM/height2, or ALM/height2, or SMM/height2) and matching effect size of comparison categories together with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and variables in the fully adjusted model. If several predictors of muscle mass were reported, the most popular and well-known predictor would be examined. If studies provided data independently by gender, they would be examined as two distinct reports.
Quality assessment
Two qualified researchers independently assessed the quality of all included studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) in terms of selection (4 stars), comparability (2 stars), and outcomes (3 stars) [25]. Higher study scores reflect a higher quality of study. We assessed 0–3, 4–6, and 7–9 NOS scores to be of low, medium, and high quality, respectively. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method was applied in order to evaluate the quality of the evidence that was presented for the outcomes [26]. According to the GRADE guideline, study design determines the baseline quality of the evidence, e.g., observational studies were initially assigned a ranking of low, and other factors could downgrade or upgrade the quality of evidence. Disagreements were resolved via dialogue with the third reviewer (Haichao Jiang).
Statistical analysis
For the purpose of comparing the all-cause mortality risks associated with having the low SMI to those associated with having normal SMI (reference), a random-effects model was utilized to pool risk estimates with 95 percent confidence intervals, to produce more conservative results than a model with a fixed-effect. Version 5.1.0 of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, HR was roughly equivalent to RR [27]. In the meantime, an OR was converted to an RR using the following formula: RR = OR/[(1-P0)+(P0*OR)], where P0 represents the reference group’s mortality rate [28]. We measured the heterogeneity between studies using the Q test and the I2-statistic [29]. The presence of significant heterogeneity was indicated by a P-value less than 0.1 in the Q test or an I2 greater than 50%.
Subgroup analyses and meta-regression were performed to explore potential sources of between-study heterogeneities from age at baseline, gender, mean BMI at baseline, location of study (specific country for meta-regression), duration of follow-up, number of participants, method used for assessment of SMI, study quality, and adjustment for confounders (not performed for meta-regression). Additionally, a meta-regression model was also performed with continuous variables, except for method of exposure assessment, and country of study. A P-value of less than 0.1 was considered statistically significant for meta-regression analysis.
A leave-one-out meta-analysis (LOOM) was undertaken as a sensitivity analysis, i.e., deleting one piece of research at a time to evaluate the robustness of the primary results and the influence of each report on the effect or heterogeneity. Publication bias was evaluated by funnel plots and Egger’s regression test. The presence of publication bias was indicated by a P-value smaller than 0.1 [30]. In cases of publishing bias, the trim and fill method was applied [31].
To prevent input mistakes, we ran data analyses using STATA version 16.0 (Stata Corp, College Station, TX, USA) with double data input. Unless otherwise noted, a P-value of less than 0.05 was regarded as statistically significant.
Results
Literature search
The flowchart depicting the study selection procedure is shown in Fig 1. Initial retrieval yielded 4403 articles, but after removing duplicates and screening titles and abstracts, only 993 articles remained for full-text review. An additional 977 articles were removed for the following reasons: 362 Study design was inconsistent; participants in 270 studies were not healthy; 158 articles had improper measurements, 94 articles did not report assessable target outcomes; and 93 articles lacked adequate data for quantitative analysis. In the final meta-analysis, 16 studies [32–47] involving 81358 participants were included.
Characteristics of included studies
Sixteen articles with twenty-four reports reported skeletal muscle mass index-related mortality risk effect sizes [32–47]. Table 1 displayed a summary and details of the sixteen articles included in the review. The studies included 81358 participants, of whom 11696 passed away. The number of deaths was not reported in a single study [36]. The range of sample sizes was from 287 to 44060. The participants’ average age ranged from 43,9 to 93,5 years. The average duration of follow-up varied between 3 and 14.4 years. To detect SMI, ten studies utilized DXA [32, 34, 37, 38, 40, 42–46] five studies utilized BIA [33, 35, 36, 39, 41], and two studies utilized Anthropometry [43, 47].
Study quality
NOS was used to evaluate the quality of the study, and the scores are shown in Table 2. According to the NOS score, fifteen of the studies were of high quality, one was of medium quality, and none were of low quality. The average study quality score for all-cause mortality was 7.7. The evidence level of the results can be seen in S2 Table.
Low skeletal muscle mass index and mortality risk
In total, 16 studies with 24 reports were included in the analysis of low SMI and the risk of all-cause mortality. The pooled RR of all-cause mortality risk was 1.57 (95% CI, 1.25 to 1.96, P < 0.001) across the lowest to normal muscle mass category, indicating a significant positive association between low SMI and all-cause mortality risk. High heterogeneity was observed among studies (I2 = 96.5%, P < 0.001) (Table 3 and Fig 2).
RR indicates relative risk, CI indicates confidence intervals.
Meta-regression and subgroup analysis
The results of subgroup analysis and meta-regression were shown in Table 3. We stratified by age, gender, BMI, country, follow-up time, number of participants, and measurement methods. Stratified by BMI (P = 0.086) and country (P = 0.021), heterogeneity was found between studies. In addition, the risk of all-cause mortality associated with low SMI was higher in adults with a higher BMI (Fig 3).
RR indicates relative risk.
According to the findings of the subgroup analysis, low SMI was significantly associated with an increase in all-cause mortality in people aged ≤ 45, 45 to 65, and ≥ 65, and the pooled RRs were 1.41 (95% CI, 1.19–1.68, P<0.001), 1.74 (95% CI, 1.11–2.72, P = 0.016), 1.56 (95% CI, 1.20–2.04, P = 0.001), respectively. low SMI was significantly associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality in male studies and mixed male and female studies, the pooled RRs were 1.41 (95% CI, 1.21–1.64, P<0.001) and 1.32 (95% CI, 1.16–1.51, P<0.001). Additionally, low SMI was significantly associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality in studies with a body mass index (BMI) between 18.5 to 25 (1.34, 95% CI, 1.24–1.45, P<0.001), 25 to 30 (1.91, 95% CI, 1.16–3.15, P = 0.011), and over 30 (2.58, 95% CI, 1.20–5.54 P = 0.015). Geographically, low SMI was significantly associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality in Asian (1.41, 95% CI, 1.24–1.64, P<0.001) and American (1.21, 95% CI, 1.12–1.31, P<0.001) countries. Low SMI was significantly associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality in studies with a follow-up time of 5 to 10 years (1.28, 95% CI, 1.15–1.44, P<0.001) and more than 10 years (1.25, 95% CI, 1.11–1.42, P<0.001). According to the testing technologies, low SMI was significantly associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality in studies using BIA (1.20, 95% CI, 1.07–1.33, P = 0.001), DXA (1.86, 95% CI, 1.26–2.74, P = 0.002), and anthropometry (1.27, 95% CI, 1.02–1.57, P = 0.031). Therefore, gender, BMI, geography, duration of follow-up, and testing technologies might be sources of heterogeneity in the study.
Sensitivity analysis
Concerning the robustness of overall effect sizes, we conducted LOOM analysis for sensitivity. The results of sensitivity analysis showed that after excluding any single study at a time, low skeletal muscle mass index was still significantly associated with the increase in all-cause mortality risk, indicating that our meta-analysis results were robust (Fig 4) (S3 Table).
RR indicates relative risk, CI indicates confidence interval.
Publication bias
The Egger’s test and funnel plot indicated no significant publication bias in the primary analysis for all-cause mortality (P = 0.364) (Fig 5).
RR indicates relative risk.
Discussion
This is a meta-analysis based on 16 prospective cohort studies, and the results showed that the pooled RR of all-cause mortality risk was 1.57 (95% CI, 1.25 to 1.96, P<0.001) across the lowest to the normal SMI, indicating a significant positive association between low SMI and all-cause mortality risk, and the risk of all-cause mortality associated with low SMI was higher in adults with a higher BMI. In addition, meta-regression and subgroup analysis showed that gender, BMI, country, location, duration of follow-up, and assessment methods might be sources of heterogeneity in the study.
Our results were consistent with the results of a previous meta-analysis [20] based on 9 cohort studies, which showed that low skeletal muscle mass was significantly associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality. However, our research was very different in study design. The previous meta-analysis study only retrieved two databases, and the study objects only included the elderly over 65 years old. The most critical thing was that they calculated the standardized mean difference in skeletal muscle mass index between the dead and the living by comparing them with the survivors. Muscle loss or decreased muscle mass was significantly connected with an increased risk of all-cause mortality in diseased individuals [22, 23]. This suggested that low SMI was strongly related with an increased risk of all-cause mortality, regardless of the health status of individuals. Thus, increased attention should be paid to this public health issue among the general population to minimize the burden of death to the greatest extent.
This meta-analysis found that low SMI was significantly associated with an increase in all-cause mortality in people aged ≤ 45 years old, 45 to 65 years old, and ≥ 65 years old. Because there were too few samples in the two subgroups (≤ 45 years old and between 45 and 65 years old), the exact correlation between low SMI and all-cause mortality could not be obtained, which needed to be verified by more cohort studies in the later stage. Subgroup analysis of subgroups older than 65 years old showed that low SMI increased the risk of all-cause mortality by 56%, which might be related to the faster decline of muscle mass [4] and the decline of their own physical function [48] in the elderly. Therefore, we should pay more attention to the serious phenomenon of muscle loss in the elderly and prevent it in advance.
Meta-regression results were consistent with subgroup analyses, indicating that the risk of all-cause mortality associated with low SMI was higher in adults with a higher BMI. Interestingly, a cohort study [49] based on 3.6 million adults also found similar results, BMI had J-shaped associations with all-cause mortality. Despite the fact that everyone is aware that obesity is damaging to health. Numerous studies [50–52] demonstrated that obesity increased mortality, but the optimal BMI range was still unknown. The reason may be that the causal relationship and possible mechanisms underlying between BMI and age, sex, and other specific associations have not been found [53].
The results of meta regression and subgroup analysis indicated that studies in different regions might be the source of heterogeneity in this meta-analysis, which might be attributed to diverse ethnic groups in different countries and varied instruments and equipment used to measure SMI.
As we all know, there were many measurements of muscle mass, including skeletal mass index (SMI), skeletal muscle mass index (SMMI), appendicular lean mass (ALM), appendicular muscle mass (AMM), appendicular skeletal mass index (ASMI), body muscle mass index (BMMI), fat-free mass index (FFMI), and mid-arm muscle circumference (MAMC). Considering that there may be errors between different measurement methods, resulting in great heterogeneity between studies, our study included only prospective cohort studies that reported skeletal muscle quality by SMI (equals to ASM/height2, or ALM/height2, or SMM/height2). This meta-analysis found that the subgroups using DXA(1.86, 95% CI, 1.26–2.74, P = 0.002) and BIA (1.20, 95% CI, 1.07–1.33, P = 0.001) to measure SMI showed that low SMI was significantly associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality. Currently, DXA and BIA are widely used to measure muscle mass [54, 55], but both have a major drawback in that the measurement findings of different manufacturers of instruments are inconsistent [56–59]. However, clinical researchers have been trying to find ways to optimize the loopholes of both, attempting to pinpoint the actual cut-off point [60]. In addition, from an economic and practical standpoint, the BIA method of measuring muscle mass might be superior to DXA [61], which also explained to some extent why the heterogeneity of BIA (I2 = 37.2, P = 0.144) was smaller.
In addition, we discovered that the risk of all-cause mortality was lower in studies with a follow-up of more than 10 years compared to studies with a follow-up of 5 to 10 years. A meta-analysis of the connection between sarcopenia and all-cause mortality risk discovered a decreased all-cause mortality risk in trials lasting five years or more [62]. One possible reason might be that the subjects of the study with a follow-up of less than 5 years were older. In the studies we included, the average age of the participants was 81.8 years [37, 41, 45, 47] for follow-up periods of less than 5 years, 68.0 years [32, 33, 35, 38–40, 42, 44] for follow-up periods of 5 to 10 years, and 76.1 years [34, 36, 43, 46] for follow-up periods of more than 10 years. Although the average age of participants with a follow-up duration of 5 to 10 years was older than that of those with a follow-up period of more than 10 years, the average age of those with a follow-up period of less than 5 years was the oldest.
This study had some limitations. Despite the fact that we unified the indicators for evaluating skeletal muscle mass index (SMI), significant heterogeneity was still observed. Through subgroup analysis and meta-regression, we found the possible potential sources of heterogeneity. Nevertheless, the study was still limited by its small sample size. Last, studies reported low SMI diagnosed by different criteria were included in this present meta-analysis, thus the differences in different assessment criteria are inevitable.
Conclusions
Low SMI was significantly associated with the increased risk of all-cause mortality, and the risk of all-cause mortality associated with low SMI was higher in adults with a higher BMI. Low SMI prevention and treatment might be significant for reducing mortality risk and promoting healthy longevity.
Supporting information
S2 Table. Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) quality of evidence.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286745.s003
(DOCX)
S3 Table. Leave-one-out meta-analysis of low skeletal muscle mass index and risk of all-cause mortality.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286745.s004
(DOCX)
References
- 1. Minetto MA, Busso C, Gamerro G, Lalli P, Massazza G, Invernizzi M. Quantitative assessment of volumetric muscle loss: Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and ultrasonography. Current opinion in pharmacology. 2021;57:148–56. pmid:33735662.
- 2. Sartori R, Romanello V, Sandri M. Mechanisms of muscle atrophy and hypertrophy: implications in health and disease. Nature communications. 2021;12(1):330. pmid:33436614.
- 3. Buckner SL, Dankel SJ, Bell ZW, Abe T, Loenneke JP. The Association of Handgrip Strength and Mortality: What Does It Tell Us and What Can We Do With It? Rejuvenation research. 2019;22(3):230–4. pmid:30200809.
- 4. Janssen I, Heymsfield SB, Wang ZM, Ross R. Skeletal muscle mass and distribution in 468 men and women aged 18–88 yr. Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md: 1985). 2000;89(1):81–8. pmid:10904038.
- 5. Lexell J, Taylor CC, Sjöström M. What is the cause of the ageing atrophy? Total number, size and proportion of different fiber types studied in whole vastus lateralis muscle from 15- to 83-year-old men. Journal of the neurological sciences. 1988;84(2–3):275–94. pmid:3379447.
- 6. Anker SD, Morley JE, von Haehling S. Welcome to the ICD-10 code for sarcopenia. Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle. 2016;7(5):512–4. pmid:27891296.
- 7. McGlory C, van Vliet S, Stokes T, Mittendorfer B, Phillips SM. The impact of exercise and nutrition on the regulation of skeletal muscle mass. The Journal of physiology. 2019;597(5):1251–8. pmid:30010196.
- 8. Koo BK. Assessment of Muscle Quantity, Quality and Function. Journal of obesity & metabolic syndrome. 2022;31(1):9–16. pmid:35318289.
- 9. Zhang X, Zhang W, Wang C, Tao W, Dou Q, Yang Y. Sarcopenia as a predictor of hospitalization among older people: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC geriatrics. 2018;18(1):188. pmid:30134867.
- 10. Allen SL, Quinlan JI, Dhaliwal A, Armstrong MJ, Elsharkawy AM, Greig CA, et al. Sarcopenia in chronic liver disease: mechanisms and countermeasures. American journal of physiology Gastrointestinal and liver physiology. 2021;320(3):G241–g57. pmid:33236953.
- 11. Park S, Kim SH, Shin JY. Combined association of skeletal muscle mass and grip strength with cardiovascular diseases in patients with type 2 diabetes. Journal of diabetes. 2021;13(12):1015–24. pmid:34288415.
- 12. Debigaré R, Côté CH, Maltais F. Peripheral muscle wasting in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Clinical relevance and mechanisms. American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine. 2001;164(9):1712–7. pmid:11719314.
- 13. van der Zanden V, van Soolingen NJ, Viddeleer AR, Trum JW, Amant F, Mourits MJE, et al. Low preoperative skeletal muscle density is predictive for negative postoperative outcomes in older women with ovarian cancer. Gynecologic oncology. 2021;162(2):360–7. pmid:34112514.
- 14. Puthucheary ZA, Hart N. Skeletal muscle mass and mortality—but what about functional outcome? Critical care (London, England). 2014;18(1):110. pmid:24528611.
- 15. Newman AB, Kupelian V, Visser M, Simonsick EM, Goodpaster BH, Kritchevsky SB, et al. Strength, but not muscle mass, is associated with mortality in the health, aging and body composition study cohort. The journals of gerontology Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences. 2006;61(1):72–7. pmid:16456196.
- 16. Cawthon PM, Manini T, Patel SM, Newman A, Travison T, Kiel DP, et al. Putative Cut-Points in Sarcopenia Components and Incident Adverse Health Outcomes: An SDOC Analysis. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2020;68(7):1429–37. pmid:32633824.
- 17. Cawthon PM, Blackwell T, Cummings SR, Orwoll ES, Duchowny KA, Kado DM, et al. Muscle Mass Assessed by the D3-Creatine Dilution Method and Incident Self-reported Disability and Mortality in a Prospective Observational Study of Community-Dwelling Older Men. The journals of gerontology Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences. 2021;76(1):123–30. pmid:32442245.
- 18. Cawthon PM, Orwoll ES, Peters KE, Ensrud KE, Cauley JA, Kado DM, et al. Strong Relation Between Muscle Mass Determined by D3-creatine Dilution, Physical Performance, and Incidence of Falls and Mobility Limitations in a Prospective Cohort of Older Men. The journals of gerontology Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences. 2019;74(6):844–52. pmid:29897420.
- 19. Baskin KK, Winders BR, Olson EN. Muscle as a "mediator" of systemic metabolism. Cell metabolism. 2015;21(2):237–48. pmid:25651178.
- 20. de Santana FM, Premaor MO, Tanigava NY, Pereira RMR. Low muscle mass in older adults and mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Experimental gerontology. 2021;152:111461. pmid:34214624.
- 21. Au PC-M, Li H-L, Lee GK-Y, Li GH-Y, Chan M, Cheung BM-Y, et al. Sarcopenia and mortality in cancer: A meta-analysis. Osteoporosis and sarcopenia. 2021;7(Suppl 1):S28–S33. MEDLINE:pmid:33997306.
- 22. Chang KV, Chen JD, Wu WT, Huang KC, Hsu CT, Han DS. Association between Loss of Skeletal Muscle Mass and Mortality and Tumor Recurrence in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Liver cancer. 2018;7(1):90–103. pmid:29662836.
- 23. Deng HY, Chen ZJ, Qiu XM, Zhu DX, Tang XJ, Zhou Q. Sarcopenia and prognosis of advanced cancer patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors: A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutrition (Burbank, Los Angeles County, Calif). 2021;90:111345. pmid:34166897.
- 24. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2021;134:178–89. pmid:33789819.
- 25. Lo CK, Mertz D, Loeb M. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale: comparing reviewers’ to authors’ assessments. BMC medical research methodology. 2014;14:45. pmid:24690082.
- 26. Goldet G, Howick J. Understanding GRADE: an introduction. J Evid Based Med. 2013;6(1):50–4. pmid:23557528.
- 27.
Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. http://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/.
- 28. Zhang J, Yu KF. What’s the relative risk? A method of correcting the odds ratio in cohort studies of common outcomes. Jama. 1998;280(19):1690–1. pmid:9832001.
- 29. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Bmj. 2003;327(7414):557–60. pmid:12958120.
- 30. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Bmj. 1997;315(7109):629–34. pmid:9310563.
- 31. Duval S, Tweedie R. Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics. 2000;56(2):455–63. pmid:10877304.
- 32. Abramowitz MK, Hall CB, Amodu A, Sharma D, Androga L, Hawkins M. Muscle mass, BMI, and mortality among adults in the United States: A population-based cohort study. PloS one. 2018;13(4):e0194697. pmid:29641540.
- 33. Buchman AS, Leurgans SE, Wang T, Schnaider-Beeri M, Agarwal P, Dawe RJ, et al. Motor function is the primary driver of the associations of sarcopenia and physical frailty with adverse health outcomes in community-dwelling older adults. PloS one. 2021;16(2):e0245680. pmid:33529220.
- 34. Cawthon PM, Harrison SL, Rogers-Soeder T, Webber K, Jonnalagadda S, Pereira SL, et al. Body Weight, BMI, Percent Fat and Associations with Mortality and Incident Mobility Limitation in Older Men. Geriatrics (Basel, Switzerland). 2021;6(2). pmid:34070000.
- 35. Chuang SY, Chang HY, Lee MS, Chia-Yu Chen R, Pan WH. Skeletal muscle mass and risk of death in an elderly population. Nutrition, metabolism, and cardiovascular diseases: NMCD. 2014;24(7):784–91. pmid:24529491.
- 36. Costanzo L, De Vincentis A, Di Iorio A, Bandinelli S, Ferrucci L, Antonelli Incalzi R, et al. Impact of Low Muscle Mass and Low Muscle Strength According to EWGSOP2 and EWGSOP1 in Community-Dwelling Older People. The journals of gerontology Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences. 2020;75(7):1324–30. pmid:32157272.
- 37. de Santana FM, Domiciano DS, Gonçalves MA, Machado LG, Figueiredo CP, Lopes JB, et al. Association of Appendicular Lean Mass, and Subcutaneous and Visceral Adipose Tissue With Mortality in Older Brazilians: The São Paulo Ageing & Health Study. Journal of bone and mineral research: the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. 2019;34(7):1264–74. pmid:30866105.
- 38. Kim JH, Lim S, Choi SH, Kim KM, Yoon JW, Kim KW, et al. Sarcopenia: an independent predictor of mortality in community-dwelling older Korean men. The journals of gerontology Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences. 2014;69(10):1244–52. pmid:24721723.
- 39. Kruse NT, Buzkova P, Barzilay JI, Valderrabano RJ, Robbins JA, Fink HA, et al. Association of skeletal muscle mass, kidney disease and mortality in older men and women: the cardiovascular health study. Aging. 2020;12(21):21023–36. pmid:33139582.
- 40. Moon JH, Kim KM, Kim JH, Moon JH, Choi SH, Lim S, et al. Predictive Values of the New Sarcopenia Index by the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health Sarcopenia Project for Mortality among Older Korean Adults. PloS one. 2016;11(11):e0166344. pmid:27832145.
- 41. Nakamura K, Yoshida D, Honda T, Hata J, Shibata M, Hirakawa Y, et al. Prevalence and Mortality of Sarcopenia in a Community-dwelling Older Japanese Population: The Hisayama Study. Journal of epidemiology. 2021;31(5):320–7. pmid:32507775.
- 42. Oh H, Kwak SY, Jo G, Lee J, Park D, Lee DH, et al. Adiposity and mortality in Korean adults: a population-based prospective cohort study. The American journal of clinical nutrition. 2020. pmid:33037431.
- 43. Sanada K, Chen R, Willcox B, Ohara T, Wen A, Takenaka C, et al. Association of sarcopenic obesity predicted by anthropometric measurements and 24-y all-cause mortality in elderly men: The Kuakini Honolulu Heart Program. Nutrition (Burbank, Los Angeles County, Calif). 2018;46:97–102. pmid:29290364.
- 44. Sim M, Prince RL, Scott D, Daly RM, Duque G, Inderjeeth CA, et al. Sarcopenia Definitions and Their Associations With Mortality in Older Australian Women. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association. 2019;20(1):76–82.e2. pmid:30527277.
- 45. Sobestiansky S, Michaelsson K, Cederholm T. Sarcopenia prevalence and associations with mortality and hospitalisation by various sarcopenia definitions in 85–89 year old community-dwelling men: a report from the ULSAM study. BMC geriatrics. 2019;19(1):318. pmid:31747923.
- 46. Spahillari A, Mukamal KJ, DeFilippi C, Kizer JR, Gottdiener JS, Djoussé L, et al. The association of lean and fat mass with all-cause mortality in older adults: The Cardiovascular Health Study. Nutrition, metabolism, and cardiovascular diseases: NMCD. 2016;26(11):1039–47. pmid:27484755.
- 47. Wang H, Hai S, Liu Y, Liu Y, Dong B. Skeletal Muscle Mass as a Mortality Predictor among Nonagenarians and Centenarians: A Prospective Cohort Study. Scientific reports. 2019;9(1):2420. pmid:30787413.
- 48. Karunananthan S, Moodie EEM, Bergman H, Payette H, Diehr PH, Wolfson C. Physical Function and Survival in Older Adults: A longitudinal study accounting for time-varying effects. Archives of gerontology and geriatrics. 2021;96:104440. pmid:34119809.
- 49. Bhaskaran K, Dos-Santos-Silva I, Leon DA, Douglas IJ, Smeeth L. Association of BMI with overall and cause-specific mortality: a population-based cohort study of 3·6 million adults in the UK. The lancet Diabetes & endocrinology. 2018;6(12):944–53. pmid:30389323.
- 50. Flegal KM, Kit BK, Orpana H, Graubard BI. Association of all-cause mortality with overweight and obesity using standard body mass index categories: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Jama. 2013;309(1):71–82. pmid:23280227.
- 51. Global BMIMC, Di Angelantonio E, Bhupathiraju Sh N, Wormser D, Gao P, Kaptoge S, et al. Body-mass index and all-cause mortality: individual-participant-data meta-analysis of 239 prospective studies in four continents. Lancet (London, England). 2016;388(10046):776–86. pmid:27423262.
- 52. Aune D, Sen A, Prasad M, Norat T, Janszky I, Tonstad S, et al. BMI and all cause mortality: systematic review and non-linear dose-response meta-analysis of 230 cohort studies with 3.74 million deaths among 30.3 million participants. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2016;353:i2156. pmid:27146380.
- 53. Winter JE, MacInnis RJ, Nowson CA. The Influence of Age the BMI and All-Cause Mortality Association: A Meta-Analysis. The journal of nutrition, health & aging. 2017;21(10):1254–8. pmid:29188887.
- 54. Buckinx F, Landi F, Cesari M, Fielding RA, Visser M, Engelke K, et al. Pitfalls in the measurement of muscle mass: a need for a reference standard. Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle. 2018;9(2):269–78. pmid:29349935.
- 55. Rossi AP, Fantin F, Micciolo R, Bertocchi M, Bertassello P, Zanandrea V, et al. Identifying sarcopenia in acute care setting patients. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association. 2014;15(4):303.e7–12. pmid:24508329.
- 56. Masanés F, Rojano ILX, Salvà A, Serra-Rexach JA, Artaza I, Formiga F, et al. Cut-off Points for Muscle Mass—Not Grip Strength or Gait Speed—Determine Variations in Sarcopenia Prevalence. The journal of nutrition, health & aging. 2017;21(7):825–9. pmid:28717813.
- 57. Sergi G, De Rui M, Veronese N, Bolzetta F, Berton L, Carraro S, et al. Assessing appendicular skeletal muscle mass with bioelectrical impedance analysis in free-living Caucasian older adults. Clinical nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland). 2015;34(4):667–73. pmid:25103151.
- 58. Hull H, He Q, Thornton J, Javed F, Allen L, Wang J, et al. iDXA, Prodigy, and DPXL dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry whole-body scans: a cross-calibration study. Journal of clinical densitometry: the official journal of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry. 2009;12(1):95–102. pmid:19028125.
- 59. Yu SC, Powell A, Khow KS, Visvanathan R. The Performance of Five Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis Prediction Equations against Dual X-ray Absorptiometry in Estimating Appendicular Skeletal Muscle Mass in an Adult Australian Population. Nutrients. 2016;8(4):189. pmid:27043617.
- 60. Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Bahat G, Bauer J, Boirie Y, Bruyère O, Cederholm T, et al. Sarcopenia: revised European consensus on definition and diagnosis. Age and ageing. 2019;48(4):601. pmid:31081853.
- 61. Reiss J, Iglseder B, Kreutzer M, Weilbuchner I, Treschnitzer W, Kässmann H, et al. Case finding for sarcopenia in geriatric inpatients: performance of bioimpedance analysis in comparison to dual X-ray absorptiometry. BMC geriatrics. 2016;16:52. pmid:26928275.
- 62. Liu P, Hao Q, Hai S, Wang H, Cao L, Dong B. Sarcopenia as a predictor of all-cause mortality among community-dwelling older people: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Maturitas. 2017;103:16–22. pmid:28778327.