Evidence Hub

Sarcopenia in type 2 Diabetes mellitus among Asian populations: prevalence and risk factors based on AWGS- 2019: a systematic review and meta-analysis

M. Yogesh, Monika Patel, R. Gandhi, Abhishek Patel, Khushal Naranbhai Kidecha

BMC Endocrine Disorders, 2025

19,902 participants · 31 citations

Abstract

Sarcopenia is increasingly recognized as a significant complication in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), yet its prevalence and risk factors in Asian populations remain incompletely understood using the updated Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia (AWGS) 2019 criteria. The present review aimed to evaluate the prevalence of sarcopenia among Asian T2DM patients and identify associated risk factors using AWGS-2019 criteria through systematic review and meta-analysis. A comprehensive systematic review of PubMed, SCOPUS, Crossref, Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar, and OpenAlex followed PRISMA guidelines to identify observational studies assessing the magnitude of sarcopenia in type-2 Diabetes mellitus. Random-effect models were used to estimate pooled prevalence and odds ratios (OR) for associated factors. Heterogeneity was quantified using I2 statistics and Cochran's Q test, where I2 values of 25%, 50%, and 75% indicated low, moderate, and high heterogeneity, respectively. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression explored heterogeneity sources across all studies. The quality of the studies was assessed by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) criteria. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plot and Egger's test. Findings. Thirty nine studies, including approximately 19,902 participants, were analyzed. The pooled prevalence of confirmed sarcopenia was 23% (95% CI: 18%-27%, p < 0.001) among Asian T2DM patients, with notably higher rates of possible sarcopenia at 61% (95% CI: 28%-86%, p <…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 19,902 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free