Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Sarcopenia Prevalence in Elderly According to Different Methodologies
Introduction: The world is aging and the literature suggests that elderly people experience losses in muscle tissue function—a condition called sarcopenia. Different assessment methods for sarcopenia have been reported, making it difficult to estimate it accurately.Objective: To check estimates of...
| Autores: | , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2015 |
| País: | Brasil |
| Recursos: | Universidade La Salle (UNILASALLE) |
| Repositorio: | Saúde e Desenvolvimento Humano |
| Idioma: | portugués |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:ojs.revistas.unilasalle.edu.br:article/2430 |
| Acesso em linha: | https://revistas.unilasalle.edu.br/index.php/saude_desenvolvimento/article/view/2317-8582.15.6 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palavra-chave: | Elderly Aging population Prevalence Sarcopenia Idosos Envelhecimento da população Prevalência |
| Resumo: | Introduction: The world is aging and the literature suggests that elderly people experience losses in muscle tissue function—a condition called sarcopenia. Different assessment methods for sarcopenia have been reported, making it difficult to estimate it accurately.Objective: To check estimates of sarcopenia prevalence according to different methodologies.Methods: Systematic review study, followed by meta-analysis. Range and Odds Ratio (OR) were estimated for a confidence interval of 95% (CI95%) of the mean prevalence weighted by respective sample size.Results: Of the 398 studies initially identified, 19 were systematized and included 19,145 people. The mean weighted prevalence of sacropenia was 33.3% (24.2 – 43.1%). The prevalence was 41.3% (21.2 – 63.1%) as assessed by the DXA method, 48.3 % (25.6 – 71.3%) as assessed by the bioimpedance method and 22.9% (9.7 – 39.7%) as assessed by the method of determination variables--a significantly lower prevalence.Conclusion: The prevalence of sarcopenia in elderly people has reached levels above 20 percent. It is observed that bioimpedance tends to overestimate sarcopenia prevalence by approximately 17%, while the use of various determination variables tends to underestimate this prevalence by approximately 45%. Considering costs and reproduction, it is suggested that bioimpedance be used as an assessment model. |
|---|