Evidence Hub

Prevalence of sarcopenia in patients with chronic kidney disease: a global systematic review and meta‐analysis

M. Duarte, L. S. Almeida, Silvia G. R. Neri, Juliana S. Oliveira, T. Wilkinson, H. Ribeiro, R. M. Lima

Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle, 2024

42 participants · 213 citations

Abstract

Sarcopenia is a risk factor for adverse clinical outcomes in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients, including mortality. Diagnosis depends on adopted consensus definition and cutoff values; thus, prevalence rates are generally heterogeneous. We conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis to investigate the global prevalence of sarcopenia and its traits across the wide spectrum of CKD. A systematic search was conducted using databases, including MEDLINE and EMBASE, for observational studies reporting the prevalence of sarcopenia. We considered sarcopenia according to the consensus definition of the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP), the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia, the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health Sarcopenia Project, and the International Working Group on Sarcopenia (IWGS). Subgroup analyses by CKD stages, consensus, and gender were performed. Pooled prevalence was obtained from random‐effect models. A total of 140 studies (42 041 patients) across 25 countries were included in this systematic review and meta‐analyses. Global prevalence of sarcopenia was 24.5% [95% confidence interval (CI): 20.9–28.3) and did not differ among stages (P = 0.33). Prevalence varied according to the consensus definition from 11% to 30%, with no significant difference (P = 0.42). Prevalence of severe sarcopenia was 21.0% (95% CI: 11.7–32.0), with higher rates for patients on dialysis (26.2%, 95% CI: 16.6–37.1) compared to non‐dialysis…

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: 42 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