Evidence Hub

An analysis and systematic review of sarcopenia increasing osteopenia risk

Teng Z, Zhu Y, Yu X, Liu J, Long Q, Zeng Y, Lu S

PloS one, 2021

47,744 participants

Abstract

Sarcopenia is a progressive generalized skeletal muscle disorder, which may increase the risk of osteopenia. The aim of this study was to systematically review studies on the association between sarcopenia and osteopenia by pooled analysis. The PubMed and Embase databases were searched from inception to October 2020 for studies focusing on the association between sarcopenia and osteopenia. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. A pooled analysis was performed to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using random-effects models. Subgroup analysis was conducted to explore the source of heterogeneity and the stability of outcome. A total of 25 independent studies involving 47,744 participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Sarcopenia significantly increased the risk of osteopenia (OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.66-2.60); Sensitivity analyses indicated the outcome was stable. Subgroup analyses showed that sarcopenia significantly increased osteopenia risk in each subgroup. No evidence of publication bias among the studies existed. In this study, our findings showed that sarcopenia significantly increased the risk of osteopenia. Thus, we suggest that sarcopenia can be a predictor of osteopenia risk.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, 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: 47,744 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