↓ Skip to main content

McMaster University

Nutrition and physical activity in the prevention and treatment of sarcopenia: systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Osteoporosis International, March 2017
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 (#26 of 3,875)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
9 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
97 X users
facebook
9 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
video
5 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
396 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
917 Mendeley
Title
Nutrition and physical activity in the prevention and treatment of sarcopenia: systematic review
Published in
Osteoporosis International, March 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00198-017-3980-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

C. Beaudart, A. Dawson, S. C. Shaw, N. C. Harvey, J. A. Kanis, N. Binkley, J. Y. Reginster, R. Chapurlat, D. C. Chan, O. Bruyère, R. Rizzoli, C. Cooper, E. M. Dennison, the IOF-ESCEO Sarcopenia Working Group

Abstract

This systematic review summarizes the effect of combined exercise and nutrition intervention on muscle mass and muscle function. A total of 37 RCTs were identified. Results indicate that physical exercise has a positive impact on muscle mass and muscle function in subjects aged 65 years and older. However, any interactive effect of dietary supplementation appears to be limited. In 2013, Denison et al. conducted a systematic review including 17 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to explore the effect of combined exercise and nutrition intervention to improve muscle mass, muscle strength, or physical performance in older people. They concluded that further studies were needed to provide evidence upon which public health and clinical recommendations could be based. The purpose of the present work was to update the prior systematic review and include studies published up to October 2015. Using the electronic databases MEDLINE and EMBASE, we identified RCTs which assessed the combined effect of exercise training and nutritional supplementation on muscle strength, muscle mass, or physical performance in subjects aged 60 years and over. Study selection and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers. The search strategy identified 21 additional RCTs giving a total of 37 RCTs. Studies were heterogeneous in terms of protocols for physical exercise and dietary supplementation (proteins, essential amino acids, creatine, β-hydroxy-β-methylbuthyrate, vitamin D, multi-nutrients, or other). In 79% of the studies (27/34 RCTs), muscle mass increased with exercise but an additional effect of nutrition was only found in 8 RCTs (23.5%). Muscle strength increased in 82.8% of the studies (29/35 RCTs) following exercise intervention, and dietary supplementation showed additional benefits in only a small number of studies (8/35 RCTS, 22.8%). Finally, the majority of studies showed an increase of physical performance following exercise intervention (26/28 RCTs, 92.8%) but interaction with nutrition supplementation was only found in 14.3% of these studies (4/28 RCTs). Physical exercise has a positive impact on muscle mass and muscle function in healthy subjects aged 60 years and older. The biggest effect of exercise intervention, of any type, has been seen on physical performance (gait speed, chair rising test, balance, SPPB test, etc.). We observed huge variations in regard to the dietary supplementation protocols. Based on the included studies, mainly performed on well-nourished subjects, the interactive effect of dietary supplementation on muscle function appears limited.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 97 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 917 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 916 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 118 13%
Student > Bachelor 118 13%
Researcher 82 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 81 9%
Other 48 5%
Other 158 17%
Unknown 312 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 210 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 105 11%
Sports and Recreations 78 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 35 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 35 4%
Other 89 10%
Unknown 365 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 150. 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 07 April 2023.
All research outputs
#278,347
of 25,654,806 outputs
Outputs from Osteoporosis International
#26
of 3,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,886
of 325,205 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Osteoporosis International
#1
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,654,806 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 3,875 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 325,205 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 83 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 98% of its contemporaries.