Evidence Hub

Sarcopenia definitions as predictors of fracture risk independent of FRAX, falls and BMD in the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) Study: A meta-analysis

N. Harvey, E. Orwoll, T. Kwok, M. Karlsson, B. Rosengren, E. Ribom, J. Cauley, Peggy M. Cawthon et al.

Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, 2021

7,531 participants · 68 citations

Abstract

Dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry (DXA)‐derived appendicular lean mass/height2 (ALM/ht2) is the most commonly used estimate of muscle mass in the assessment of sarcopenia, but its predictive value for fracture is substantially attenuated by femoral neck (fn) bone mineral density (BMD). We investigated predictive value of 11 sarcopenia definitions for incident fracture, independent of fnBMD, fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX®) probability, and prior falls, using an extension of Poisson regression in US, Sweden, and Hong Kong Osteoporois Fractures in Men Study (MrOS) cohorts. Definitions tested were those of Baumgartner and Delmonico (ALM/ht2 only), Morley, the International Working Group on Sarcopenia, European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP1 and 2), Asian Working Group on Sarcopenia, Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (FNIH) 1 and 2 (using ALM/body mass index [BMI], incorporating muscle strength and/or physical performance measures plus ALM/ht2), and Sarcopenia Definitions and Outcomes Consortium (gait speed and grip strength). Associations were adjusted for age and time since baseline and reported as hazard ratio (HR) for first incident fracture, here major osteoporotic fracture (MOF; clinical vertebral, hip, distal forearm, proximal humerus). Further analyses adjusted additionally for FRAX‐MOF probability (n = 7531; calculated ± fnBMD), prior falls (y/n), or fnBMD T‐score. Results were synthesized by meta‐analysis. In 5660 men in USA,…

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: 7,531 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