Cited by 76Hormonal and reproductive studiesNutrition and Health in AgingMuscle metabolism and nutrition

Muscular responses to testosterone replacement vary by administration route: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

Open access
Skinner, Jared W., Otzel, Dana M., Bowser, Andrew, Nargi, Daniel, Agarwal, Sanjay, Peterson, Mark D., Zou, Baiming, Borst, Stephen E. +1 more·2018·Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle

Abstract

Background: Inconsistent fat‐free mass (FFM) and muscle strength responses have been reported in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) administering testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) to middle‐aged and older men. Our objective was to conduct a meta‐analysis to determine whether TRT improves FFM and muscle strength in middle‐aged and older men and whether the muscular responses vary by TRT administration route. Methods: Systematic literature searches of MEDLINE/PubMed and the Cochrane Library were conducted from inception through 31 March 2017 to identify double‐blind RCTs that compared intramuscular or transdermal TRT vs. placebo and that reported assessments of FFM or upper‐extremity or lower‐extremity strength. Studies were identified, and data were extracted and validated by three investigators, with disagreement resolved by consensus. Using a random effects model, individual effect sizes (ESs) were determined from 31 RCTs reporting FFM (sample size: n = 1213 TRT, n = 1168 placebo) and 17 reporting upper‐extremity or lower‐extremity strength (n = 2572 TRT, n = 2523 placebo). Heterogeneity was examined, and sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: When administration routes were collectively assessed, TRT was associated with increases in FFM [ES = 1.20 ± 0.15 (95% CI: 0.91, 1.49)], total body strength [ES = 0.90 ± 0.12 (0.67, 1.14)], lower‐extremity strength [ES = 0.77 ± 0.16 (0.45, 1.08)], and upper‐extremity strength [ES = 1.13 ± 0.18 (0.78, 1.47)] (P < 0.001 for all). When administration routes were evaluated separately, the ES magnitudes were larger and the per cent changes were 3–5 times greater for intramuscular TRT than for transdermal formulations vs. respective placebos, for all outcomes evaluated. Specifically, intramuscular TRT was associated with a 5.7% increase in FFM [ES = 1.49 ± 0.18 (1.13, 1.84)] and 10–13% increases in total body strength [ES = 1.39 ± 0.12 (1.15, 1.63)], lower‐extremity strength [ES = 1.39 ± 0.17 (1.07, 1.72)], and upper‐extremity strength [ES = 1.37 ± 0.17 (1.03, 1.70)] (P < 0.001 for all). In comparison, transdermal TRT was associated with only a 1.7% increase in FFM [ES = 0.98 ± 0.21 (0.58, 1.39)] and only 2–5% increases in total body [ES = 0.55 ± 0.17 (0.22, 0.88)] and upper‐extremity strength [ES = 0.97 ± 0.24 (0.50, 1.45)] (P < 0.001). Interestingly, transdermal TRT produced no change in lower‐extremity strength vs. placebo [ES = 0.26 ± 0.23 (−0.19, 0.70), P = 0.26]. Subanalyses of RCTs limiting enrolment to men ≥60 years of age produced similar results. Conclusions: Intramuscular TRT is more effective than transdermal formulations at increasing LBM and improving muscle strength in middle‐aged and older men, particularly in the lower extremities.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jcsm.12291

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 84 · Cited by 76

Authors
Skinner, J. W., Otzel, D. M., Bowser, A., Nargi, D., Agarwal, S., Peterson, M. D., Zou, B., Borst, S. E., & Yarrow, J. F.
Affiliations
  • North Florida/South Georgia Veterans Health System (US)
  • Malcom Randall VA Medical Center (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • University of Florida (US)
Corresponding author
Yarrow, Joshua F.
Venue
Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-03-15
Volume
9
Issue
3
Pages
465-481
ISSN
  • 2190-5991 (ISSN-L)
  • 2190-6009
OpenAlex
W2792196512
Cited by
76
References
84
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Cachexia Sarcopenia and Muscle (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
North Florida/South Georgia Veterans Health System
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Hormonal and reproductive studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Nutrition and Health in Aging
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Muscle metabolism and nutrition
Keywords
testosterone replacement therapy, route of administration, intramuscular testosterone, transdermal testosterone, fat-free mass, muscle strength, older men, middle-aged men, androgen deficiency, lower limb strength, upper body strength, placebo response, bioavailability, bioequivalence, bioequivalence testing
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Drug Administration Routes, Humans, Male, Testosterone, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Muscle, Skeletal, Hormone Replacement Therapy, Muscle Strength

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review