↓ Skip to main content

Exercise for sarcopenia in older people: A systematic review and network meta‐analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle, April 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#21 of 1,309)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
twitter
200 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
131 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
Exercise for sarcopenia in older people: A systematic review and network meta‐analysis
Published in
Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle, April 2023
DOI 10.1002/jcsm.13225
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yanjiao Shen, Qingyang Shi, Kailei Nong, Sheyu Li, Jirong Yue, Jin Huang, Birong Dong, Marla Beauchamp, Qiukui Hao

Abstract

Sarcopenia is a serious public health concern among older adults worldwide. Exercise is the most common intervention for sarcopenia. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of different exercise types for older adults with sarcopenia. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the effectiveness of exercise interventions on patient-important outcomes for older adults with sarcopenia were eligible. We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials via Ovid until 3 June 2022. We used frequentist random-effects network meta-analyses to summarize the evidence and applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations framework to rate the certainty of evidence. Our search identified 5988 citations, of which 42 RCTs proved eligible with 3728 participants with sarcopenia (median age: 72.9 years, female: 73.3%) with a median follow-up of 12 weeks. We are interested in patient-important outcomes that include mortality, quality of life, muscle strength and physical function measures. High or moderate certainty evidence suggested that resistance exercise with or without nutrition and the combination of resistance exercise with aerobic and balance training were the most effective interventions for improving quality of life compared to usual care (standardized mean difference from 0.68 to 1.11). Moderate certainty evidence showed that resistance and balance exercise plus nutrition (mean difference [MD]: 4.19 kg) was the most effective for improving handgrip strength (minimally important difference [MID]: 5 kg). Resistance and balance exercise with or without nutrition (MD: 0.16 m/s, moderate) were the most effective for improving physical function measured by usual gait speed (MID: 0.1 m/s). Moderate certainty evidence showed that resistance and balance exercise (MD: 1.85 s) was intermediately effective for improving physical function measured by timed up and go test (MID: 2.1 s). High certainty evidence showed that resistance and aerobic, or resistance and balance, or resistance and aerobic exercise plus nutrition (MD from 1.72 to 2.28 s) we intermediately effective for improving physical function measured by the five-repetition chair stand test (MID: 2.3 s). In older adults with sarcopenia, high or moderate certainty evidence showed that resistance exercise with or without nutrition and the combination of resistance exercise with aerobic and balance training were the most effective interventions for improving quality of life. Adding nutritional interventions to exercise had a larger effect on handgrip strength than exercise alone while showing a similar effect on other physical function measures.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 200 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 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 131 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 9%
Student > Bachelor 11 8%
Unspecified 10 8%
Researcher 10 8%
Student > Postgraduate 8 6%
Other 26 20%
Unknown 54 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 19 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 13%
Sports and Recreations 17 13%
Unspecified 10 8%
Neuroscience 6 5%
Other 9 7%
Unknown 53 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 151. 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 24 April 2024.
All research outputs
#277,543
of 25,775,807 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle
#21
of 1,309 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,577
of 420,760 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle
#2
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,775,807 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,309 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 420,760 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 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 96% of its contemporaries.