↓ Skip to main content

Considerations concerning the definition of sarcopenia

Overview of attention for article published in Osteoporosis International, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 Mendeley
Title
Considerations concerning the definition of sarcopenia
Published in
Osteoporosis International, June 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00198-016-3674-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

B. Dawson-Hughes, H. Bischoff-Ferrari

Abstract

In this commentary, we describe the sarcopenia spectrum that results in frailty and consider the impact of several components of the frailty definition on its global prevalence. We review proposed operational definitions of sarcopenia and the extent to which they have been shown to predict hard clinical outcomes, such as hip fracture, falls, and mortality. A head-to-head comparison of nine proposed operational definitions of sarcopenia as predictors of falls revealed that the definition involving appendicular lean mass (ALM)/ht(2) alone was a significant predictor; the prevalence of sarcopenia by this definition was 11 %. We consider the strengths and limitations of definitions that include functional measurements, such as gait speed and grip strength, along with measures of lean tissue mass. The functional assessments are harder to standardize than the more objective ALM measurements. The prevalence of sarcopenia by definitions that include functional and lean mass measurements tends to be lower than the prevalence by definitions that include lean mass alone. A low prevalence limits opportunity for early identification and application of prevention strategies. For these and other reasons, it seems advantageous to base the operational definition of sarcopenia on ALM/ht(2) alone. This commentary addresses the importance of a globally applicable operational definition of sarcopenia and both desirable and undesirable features of such a definition.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 96 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 14%
Student > Bachelor 13 14%
Student > Postgraduate 12 13%
Student > Master 10 10%
Other 8 8%
Other 23 24%
Unknown 17 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 7%
Psychology 3 3%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 27 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 October 2016.
All research outputs
#5,436,019
of 22,879,161 outputs
Outputs from Osteoporosis International
#907
of 3,616 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,527
of 353,105 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Osteoporosis International
#16
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,879,161 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,616 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 353,105 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.