Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.

You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.

Identifying sarcopenia

Authors: Gabor, Abellan van Kan; Mathieu, Houles; Bruno, Vellas;

Identifying sarcopenia

Abstract

The present review describes and discusses the currently available definitions for sarcopenia from consensus studies.Different sarcopenia definitions have been proposed in these last years. Six main approaches to an operative definition of sarcopenia have been identified. Although the first definitions were solely based on the assessment of the amount of muscle mass, current definitions seem to consistently recognize a bi-dimensional nature of sarcopenia. So, these approaches imply the need of simultaneously assessing both age-related quantitative (i.e. amount of muscle mass) and qualitative (i.e. muscle strength and function) declines of skeletal muscle.Although current consensus exists about a bi-dimensional nature, the proposed approaches to measure sarcopenia are characterized by methodological differences. The majority of the operative definitions proposes to assess muscle mass as an index of appendicular muscle mass divided by squared height (evaluated by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry), assess strength using hand-held dynamometers, and assess function by evaluating gait speed at habitual pace over a short distance. Nevertheless, the clinically relevant thresholds and how to combine the three aspects in an operative definition in order to identify sarcopenia are heterogeneous. A main drawback is that supportive empirical data are missing for these conceptual definitions regarding the risk-assessment of different clinically significant adverse outcomes.

Keywords

Sarcopenia, Humans, Muscle Strength, Organ Size, Muscle, Skeletal, Gait, Locomotion

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    38
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
38
Top 10%
Top 10%
Top 10%
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!