↓ Skip to main content

Pharmacological Interventions to Improve Muscle Mass, Muscle Strength and Physical Performance in Older People: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses

Overview of attention for article published in Drugs & Aging, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#47 of 1,325)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
44 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
117 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
201 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Pharmacological Interventions to Improve Muscle Mass, Muscle Strength and Physical Performance in Older People: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses
Published in
Drugs & Aging, July 2018
DOI 10.1007/s40266-018-0566-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anton De Spiegeleer, David Beckwée, Ivan Bautmans, Mirko Petrovic, the Sarcopenia Guidelines Development group of the Belgian Society of Gerontology and Geriatrics (BSGG)

Abstract

Sarcopenia, defined as the pathological decline in muscle mass, muscle strength and physical performance with aging, has become one of the geriatric giants because of its increasing prevalence and devastating health effects. The Belgian Society of Gerontology and Geriatrics (BSGG) is currently developing evidence-based guidelines for the prevention and therapy of sarcopenia for use in broad clinical practice. This systematic review summarizes the results of the Working Group on Pharmacology. Our objective was to provide an evidence-based overview of the possible pharmacological interventions for sarcopenia with a focus on interventions that have already been studied in systematic reviews or meta-analyses. We conducted a systematic umbrella review. Using the electronic databases PubMed and Web of Science, we identified systematic reviews and meta-analyses that assessed the effect of pharmacological interventions on criteria for sarcopenia in subjects aged ≥ 65 years. Study selection, quality assessment and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers. We identified seven systematic reviews or meta-analyses, encompassing ten pharmacological interventions: vitamin D, combined estrogen-progesterone, dehydroepiandrosterone, growth hormone, growth hormone-releasing hormone, combined testosterone-growth hormone, insulin-like growth factor-1, pioglitazone, testosterone and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Importantly, very few systematic reviews or meta-analyses clearly mentioned baseline sarcopenia status. Therefore, our recommendations are generalised to older people, without specifying whether the muscle effect is more effective in healthy, pre-sarcopenic or sarcopenic older people. Vitamin D had a significant effect on muscle strength and physical performance, especially in women with low baseline values (< 25 nmol/l). Adverse events were rare. Testosterone had a strong effect on muscle mass and a modest to minimal effect on muscle strength and physical performance, respectively, when supplementing men with low serum levels (< 200-300 ng/dl). The adverse events were rare and mild. Insufficient evidence was available to recommend other pharmacological interventions. Only vitamin D, especially in older women, and testosterone in older men with clinical muscle weakness and low testosterone serum levels can be justified in daily clinical practice to improve muscle mass, muscle strength and/or physical performance.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 44 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 201 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 201 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 15%
Student > Bachelor 21 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 9%
Researcher 16 8%
Other 11 5%
Other 32 16%
Unknown 72 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 57 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 3%
Sports and Recreations 6 3%
Other 22 11%
Unknown 81 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 04 October 2023.
All research outputs
#1,304,678
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Drugs & Aging
#47
of 1,325 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,960
of 344,683 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drugs & Aging
#2
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,325 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 344,683 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.