Cited by 326Nutrition and Health in AgingBody Composition Measurement TechniquesMuscle Physiology and Disorders

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 117 of the 117 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 2 of the 21 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Critical appraisal of definitions and diagnostic criteria for sarcopenic obesity based on a systematic review

Open access

Abstract

BACKGROUND Sarcopenic obesity is a clinical and functional condition characterized by the coexistence of excess fat mass and sarcopenia. Currently, different definitions of sarcopenic obesity exist and its diagnostic criteria and cut-offs are not universally established. Therefore, the prevalence and sensitivity of this condition for any disease risk prediction is affected significantly. AIM This work was conducted under the auspices of the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) and the European Association for the Study of Obesity (EASO). An international expert panel performed a systematic review as an initial step to analyze and summarize the available scientific literature on the definitions and the diagnostic criteria for sarcopenic obesity proposed and/or applied in human studies to date. METHODS The present systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The search was conducted in April 2018 in three databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science). Human studies conducted in both sexes, irrespective of ethnicity, and published from 2007 to 2018 were included; cohorts of individuals with obesity and acute or chronic conditions and treatments reported to negatively influence skeletal muscle mass and function independently of obesity were excluded from final analyses. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) adapted for cross sectional studies. RESULTS The electronic search retrieved 2335 papers of which 75 met the eligibility criteria. A marked heterogeneity in definitions and approaches to diagnose sarcopenic obesity was observed. This was mainly due to differences in the definitions of obesity and sarcopenia, in the methodologies used to assess body composition and physical function, and in the reference values for the variables that have been used (different cut-offs, interquartile analysis, diverse statistical stratification methods). This variability may be attributable, at least in part, to the availability of the methodologies in the different settings, to the variability in specialties and backgrounds of the researcher, and to the different settings (general population, clinical settings, etc.) where studies were performed. CONCLUSION The results of the current work support the need for consensus proposals on: 1) definition of sarcopenic obesity; 2) diagnostic criteria both at the level of potential gold-standards and acceptable surrogates with wide clinical applicability, and with related cut-off values; 3) methodologies to be used in actions 1 and 2. First steps should be aimed at reaching consensus on plausible proposals that would need subsequent validation based on homogeneous studies and databases, possibly based on analyses of existing cohorts, to help define the prevalence of the condition, its clinical and functional relevance as well as most effective prevention and treatment strategies.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This systematic review found that definitions and diagnostic criteria for sarcopenic obesity are highly inconsistent across human studies, preventing firm conclusions about prevalence or clinical relevance. The authors call for expert consensus on the definition, diagnostic standards and acceptable surrogates, and cutoff values.

Key findings

  • Across 75 included articles (217,973 participants; sample sizes 17–15,132; mean age 64.8±4.5 years; 54.3% women), most studies (66) defined sarcopenic obesity as coexisting obesity and sarcopenia, usually using low muscle mass alone; only 3 used regression residuals for appendicular fat-free mass, and 2 used fat-to-muscle or visceral fat-to-thigh muscle ratios.
  • Diagnostic heterogeneity was large: 19 different sarcopenia measurements and 10 adiposity measurements were used; ASM/weight or ASM/height² and BMI were most common. DXA was used for sarcopenia in 44 studies and adiposity in 17; BIA in 21 and 12; CT in 5 and 6; anthropometry for sarcopenia in 1 and adiposity in 44; hand dynamometry in 18.
  • No study defined sarcopenia by requiring both reduced muscle mass and reduced strength; dynapenic obesity was used in only 3 studies. Quality scores averaged 8.3 (range 6–10) on an adapted Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.
  • The search retrieved 2,335 references; after duplicate removal, 2,134 titles/abstracts were screened, 160 full texts were evaluated, and 75 articles were included. A meta-analysis was not performed because definitions, cutoffs, and body composition methods were too heterogeneous.

Methods

  • Systematic review registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019133328) and reported according to PRISMA; search conducted in April 2018 in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, plus manual searching. Human adult studies published 2007–2018 in any language were eligible, excluding groups with acute or chronic conditions or treatments that could independently affect skeletal muscle.
  • Three-step screening of titles, abstracts, and full texts was done by two independent investigators, with a third resolving disagreements. Data were extracted on definitions, diagnostic criteria, cutoffs, measurement methods, and sample characteristics; quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale adapted for cross-sectional studies.
  • Synthesis was narrative only; no quantitative pooling was possible because of heterogeneity in definitions, diagnostic cutoffs, and body composition methods.

Limitations

  • Stated: the review covered only the prior ten years and excluded studies in acute or chronic conditions or treatments that could independently affect muscle; the authors judged this did not compromise the aim of analyzing definitions and criteria. Stated strengths were the large selected sample and generally high study quality.
  • Evident: the marked heterogeneity in definitions, cutoffs, and measurement methods prevented meta-analysis and firm conclusions about prevalence or clinical relevance; most included studies were cross-sectional (64 of 75), limiting causal inference.
  • Evident: most studies relied on muscle mass surrogates rather than functional measures, and no included study operationalized sarcopenia as combined low mass plus low strength, so the terminology and construct validity of “sarcopenic obesity” remain questionable.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.clnu.2019.11.024

Cites

117 of 117 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

22 Own result · 11 Not checked yet · 8 Own interpretation · 7 No basis given · 2 Own method · 1 Supported so far

Verify all 19 references — free account

Show all 26 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 13
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 15
25 of 25
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Body composition is affected by ethnicity and sex.

    “Body composition is affected by ethnicity and sex.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Age plays a pivotal role in body composition alterations.

    “Additionally, age plays a pivotal role in body composition alterations.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    All methods used for measuring or estimating skeletal muscle mass (anthropometry, DXA, BIA) have major limitations.

    “In fact, all methods used for the measurement/ estimation of skeletal muscle mass (anthropometry, DXA, BIA) have shown major limitations.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The included studies are of overall high quality.

    “as well as the overall high study quality.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The pathogenesis of sarcopenic obesity remains partially unknown or incompletely understood.

    “the pathogenesis of sarcopenic obesity is still partially unknown.”
    “Since pathogenetic mechanisms underlying the onset of sarcopenic obesity are still incompletely understood”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The term sarcopenia originally referred to a condition involving both low muscle mass and impaired function.

    “Although the term sarcopenia literally refers to lack of flesh (low muscle mass), from its inception it named a condition of low muscle mass and impaired function.”
6 of 6

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.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

5 of 5

Citations

Cites

Show all 117 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Donini, L. M., Busetto, L., Bauer, J. M., Bischoff, S., Boirie, Y., Cederholm, T., Cruz-Jentoft, A. J., Dicker, D., Frühbeck, G., Giustina, A., Gonzalez, M. C., Han, H.-S., Heymsfield, S. B., Higashiguchi, T., Laviano, A., Lenzi, A., Parrinello, E., Poggiogalle, E., Prado, C. M., Rodriguez, J. S., Rolland, Y., Santini, F., Siervo, M., Tecilazich, F., Vettor, R., Yu, J., Zamboni, M., & Barazzoni, R.
Affiliations
  • Sapienza University of Rome (IT)
  • University of Padua (IT)
  • University of Hohenheim (DE)
  • Uppsala University (SE)
  • Instituto Ramón y Cajal de Investigación Sanitaria (ES)
  • Tel Aviv University (IL)
  • Spanish Biomedical Research Centre in Physiopathology of Obesity and Nutrition (ES)
  • Vita-Salute San Raffaele University (IT)
  • Seoul National University Bundang Hospital (KR)
  • Pennington Biomedical Research Center (US)
  • Fujita Health University (JP)
  • University of Alberta (CA)
  • Université Toulouse III - Paul Sabatier (FR)
  • University of Pisa (IT)
  • University of Nottingham (GB)
  • Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College (CN)
  • University of Verona (IT)
  • University of Trieste (IT)
Corresponding author
Donini, Lorenzo M.
Venue
Clinical Nutrition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-08
Volume
39
Issue
8
Pages
2368-2388
ISSN
0261-5614 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2991498934
Cited by
326
References
117
Citations by year
2026: 36 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 55 · 2023: 54 · 2022: 64 · 2021: 61 · 2020: 24
FWCI
4.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • ArTS Archivio della ricerca di Trieste (University of Trieste https://www.units.it/) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • CINECA IRIS Institutial research information system (University of Pisa) (submittedVersion)
  • IRIS Research product catalog (Sapienza University of Rome) (submittedVersion)
  • Archivio Istituzionale della Ricerca - Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele (submittedVersion)
  • Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology (medical) › Nutrition and Health in Aging
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology (medical) › Body Composition Measurement Techniques
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Muscle Physiology and Disorders
Keywords
sarcopenic obesity, diagnostic criteria, definitions, cut-off values, sarcopenia, obesity, body composition, physical function, skeletal muscle mass, consensus, ESPEN, EASO, heterogeneity
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Body Composition, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Nutritional Status, Obesity, Prevalence, Muscle, Skeletal, Risk Assessment, Consensus, Sarcopenia, Symptom Assessment

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

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