Prevalence of Sarcopenia in Patients With COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background It has been speculated that patients with sarcopenia are aggravated by the current novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic. However, there is substantial uncertainty regarding the prevalence of sarcopenia in patients with COVID-19. Objectives The purpose of the study was to systematically evaluate the prevalence of sarcopenia in patients with COVID-19, including stratification by gender, study location, study population, study design, and diagnostic criteria. Design This is the systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Methods An electronic search was performed in MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science and Scopus to identify observational studies reporting a prevalence estimate for sarcopenia in patients with COVID-19. Studies were reviewed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and a meta-analysis was performed. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort studies and Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) manual for cross-sectional studies, and Stata 14.0 was used to perform meta-analyses. Results A total of 4,639 studies were initially identified. After removing the duplicates and applying the selection criteria, we reviewed 151 full-text studies. A total of 21 studies, including 5,407 patients, were eligible for inclusion in this review finally. The prevalence of sarcopenia in patients with COVID-19 in individual studies varied from 0.8 to 90.2%. The pooled prevalence of sarcopenia in COVID-19 was 48.0% (95% confidence interval, CI: 30.8 to 65.1%, I2 = 99.68%, p = 0.000). We did not find any significant differences in the prevalence estimates between gender specificity (OR = 1.34; 95% CI = 0.80–2.26; p = 0.001). By sex, the prevalence was 42.5% (95% CI: 31.7 to 53.4%) in men and 35.7% (95% CI: 24.2 to 47.2%) in women. The prevalence estimates significantly varied based on population settings and different diagnostic criteria of sarcopenia. ICU patients (69.7, 95% CI: 51.7 to 85.2%) were more likely to suffer from sarcopenia compared to other population settings. Conclusion To our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis reporting on the prevalence of sarcopenia in patients with COVID-19. Sarcopenia is frequently observed in patients with COVID-19, with varying prevalence across population settings. This study would be useful for clinicians to prompt the increasing awareness of identifying sarcopenia and developing interventions at patients with COVID-19 with high risk of sarcopenia. Further prospective longitudinal studies to define the association of sarcopenia and its prognostic outcomes in COVID-19 survivors are urgently needed to propose the most appropriate treatment strategies during their admission and discharge. Systematic Review Registration [ www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ ], identifier [CRD42022300431].
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.042 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".