Comment on “Sarcopenia and cardiovascular diseases: A systematic review and meta‐analysis” by Zuo et al

[...]the prevalence of sarcopenia in this study was 27/160 = 16.8%, which was consistent with Sasaki's original study. [...]we had re-analysed the data and found the pooled prevalence of sarcopenia was 34.9% (95% CI: 28.1–41.8%), which was similar with the original systematic review and meta-an...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle sarcopenia and muscle, 2023-12, Vol.14 (6), p.2988-2990
Main Authors: Zhang, Xiaoming, Gao, Maofeng, Hu, ShouDi
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Conflicts of interest
Disease
Letter to the Editor
Letters to the Editor
Meta-analysis
Older people
Sarcopenia
Systematic review
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:[...]the prevalence of sarcopenia in this study was 27/160 = 16.8%, which was consistent with Sasaki's original study. [...]we had re-analysed the data and found the pooled prevalence of sarcopenia was 34.9% (95% CI: 28.1–41.8%), which was similar with the original systematic review and meta-analysis. [...]we think the authors need to present the study design of each original studies in Table 1. The prevalence of some disease is generated from a cross-sectional study, whereas the incidence of some disease is generated from a prospective cohort study. [...]we think the authors need to provide this important information (study design) of each original study, given the item of inclusion and exclusion criteria consisted of cross-sectional or prospective cohort studies.
ISSN:2190-5991
2190-6009
DOI:10.1002/jcsm.13382