Cited by 75Nutrition and Health in AgingBody Composition Measurement TechniquesFrailty in Older Adults

Applicability and agreement of different diagnostic criteria for sarcopenia estimation in the elderly

Pagotto, Valéria, Silveira, Erika Aparecida·2014·Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics

Abstract

The purpose of this study cross-sectional study comprising 132 community dwelling elderly (≥ 60 years) was to identify sarcopenia prevalence in the Brazilian elderly, utilizing different diagnostic criteria and analyze agreement between criteria. Sarcopenia was assessed by nine muscle mass diagnostic criteria, by two muscle strength criteria and also by the combination of criteria. Prevalence was analyzed for each method, along with differences by gender and age group through calculation of the prevalence ratio (PR) and confidence interval (CI) 95%. The Kappa coefficient was used to analyze the level of agreement between all criteria. Sarcopenia prevalence varied between 60.6% and 8.3% with the application of muscle mass criteria, and between 54.2% and 48.8% with the application of strength criteria. The combination muscle mass+strength resulted in a decrease of prevalence in all criteria, varying between 36.6% and 6.1%. There was an increase in prevalence according to age groups for all methods. Prevalence was higher for men according to three muscle mass criteria, and higher in women for strength criteria and by two combined mass+strength criteria. The best level of agreement was obtained for two methods that utilized dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). The prevalence of sarcopenia differs by gender and age and definition criteria. The low agreement levels obtained between methods and the different prevalence values encountered indicate the necessities of an operational definition for the estimation of sarcopenia in different population.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.archger.2014.05.009

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pagotto, V., & Silveira, E. A.
Affiliations
Universidade Federal de Goiás (BR)
Corresponding author
Pagotto, Valéria
Venue
Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-09
Volume
59
Issue
2
Pages
288-294
ISSN
0167-4943 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1974577946
Cited by
75
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 6
FWCI
4.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Nutrition and Health in Aging
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Body Composition Measurement Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Frailty in Older Adults
Keywords
sarcopenia, diagnostic criteria agreement, muscle mass, muscle strength, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, sarcopenia prevalence, older adults, community-dwelling older adults, sex differences, age differences, Brazilian older adults
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Brazil, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Sex Factors, Absorptiometry, Photon, Prevalence, Muscle Strength, Sarcopenia

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