Cited by 247Nutrition and Health in AgingBody Composition Measurement TechniquesFrailty in Older Adults

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 131 of the 133 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Deciphering the “obesity paradox” in the elderly: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of sarcopenic obesity

Abstract

Summary: Aging and obesity are two global concerns in public health. Sarcopenic obesity (SO), defined as the combination of age‐related sarcopenia and obesity, has become a pressing issue. This systematic review and meta‐analysis summarize the current clinical evidence relevant to SO. PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched, and 106 clinical studies with 167,151 elderlies were included. The estimated prevalence of SO was 9% in both men and women. Obesity was associated with 34% reduced risk of sarcopenia (odds ratio [OR] 0.66, 95% CI 0.48–0.91; p < 0.001). The pooled hazard ratio (HR) of all‐cause mortality was 1.51 (95% CI 1.14–2.02; p < 0.001) for people with SO compared with healthy individuals. SO was associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease and related mortality, metabolic disorders, cognitive impairment, arthritis, functional limitation, and lung diseases (all ORs > 1.0, p < 0.05). The attenuated risk of sarcopenia in elderlies with obesity (“obesity paradox”) was dependent on higher muscle mass and strength. Apart from unifying the diagnosis of SO, more research is needed to subphenotype people with obesity and sarcopenia for individualized treatment. Meanwhile, the maintenance of proper body composition of muscle and fat may delay or attenuate the adverse outcomes of aging.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/obr.13534

Cites

131 of 131 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 133 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Lim JP, 2015, Monocyte chemoattractant protein‐1: a proinflammatory cytokine elevated in sarcopenic obesity, Clin Interv Aging, 10, 605

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 247

Metadata

Authors
Liu, C., Wong, P. Y., Chung, Y. L., Chow, S. K., Cheung, W. H., Law, S. W., Chan, J. C. N., & Wong, R. M. Y.
Affiliations
Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
Corresponding author
Wong, Ronald Man Yeung
Venue
Obesity Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2022-11-28
Volume
24
Issue
2
Pages
e13534-e13534
ISSN
  • 1467-7881 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-789X
OpenAlex
W4310209091
Cited by
247
References
133
Citations by year
2026: 61 · 2025: 92 · 2024: 70 · 2023: 24
FWCI
6.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Obesity Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology (medical) › Nutrition and Health in Aging
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology (medical) › Body Composition Measurement Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Frailty in Older Adults
Keywords
sarcopenic obesity, obesity paradox, sarcopenia, aging, older adults, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, cognitive impairment, functional limitations, muscle mass, muscle strength, body composition, prevalence
MeSH terms
Aged, Aging, Body Composition, Cardiovascular Diseases, Female, Humans, Male, Obesity, 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