Sarcopenia in systemic sclerosis: prevalence and impact—a systematic review and meta-analysis

7Citations
Citations of this article
32Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective This review aims to provide an estimate of sarcopenia prevalence and its impact on clinical characteristics in patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc). Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Embase, Medline, Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systemically searched from inception to 24 May 2023. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies We included observational studies that reported the prevalence of sarcopenia in patients with SSc. Data extraction and synthesis Two reviewers independently performed study selection and data extraction using standardised methods. Risk of bias was assessed using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Scale and the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Meta-analysis was conducted using random effects models. Results A total of 4583 articles were screened and 9 studies with data from 815 patients were included in the analysis (8 cross-sectional studies and 1 retrospective cohort study). The overall prevalence of sarcopenia in patients with SSc was 22% (95% CI 17% to 28%). Patients with SSc with sarcopenia had a poorer quality of life (mean difference −12.02; 95% CI −19.11 to −4.93) and higher C reactive protein (CRP) levels (standardised mean difference 0.67; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.00). Conclusions Sarcopenia is common in patients with SSc. Patients with SSc with sarcopenia had a worse quality of life and higher CRP levels, based on our findings. Given the detrimental impact of sarcopenia on quality of life, future efforts aimed at early identification of sarcopenia in the clinical assessment of patients with SSc may have significance.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Tu, X., Lin, T., Ju, Y., Shu, X., Jiang, T., Ge, N., & Yue, J. (2024). Sarcopenia in systemic sclerosis: prevalence and impact—a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open, 14(3). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-078034

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free