Critical appraisal of definitions and diagnostic criteria for sarcopenic obesity based on a systematic review.


Journal

Clinical nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland)
ISSN: 1532-1983
Titre abrégé: Clin Nutr
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8309603

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
08 2020
Historique:
received: 24 10 2019
revised: 06 11 2019
accepted: 06 11 2019
pubmed: 10 12 2019
medline: 19 8 2021
entrez: 10 12 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Sarcopenic obesity is a clinical and functional condition characterized by the coexistence of excess fat mass and sarcopenia. Currently, different definitions of sarcopenic obesity exist and its diagnostic criteria and cut-offs are not universally established. Therefore, the prevalence and sensitivity of this condition for any disease risk prediction is affected significantly. This work was conducted under the auspices of the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) and the European Association for the Study of Obesity (EASO). An international expert panel performed a systematic review as an initial step to analyze and summarize the available scientific literature on the definitions and the diagnostic criteria for sarcopenic obesity proposed and/or applied in human studies to date. The present systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The search was conducted in April 2018 in three databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science). Human studies conducted in both sexes, irrespective of ethnicity, and published from 2007 to 2018 were included; cohorts of individuals with obesity and acute or chronic conditions and treatments reported to negatively influence skeletal muscle mass and function independently of obesity were excluded from final analyses. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) adapted for cross sectional studies. The electronic search retrieved 2335 papers of which 75 met the eligibility criteria. A marked heterogeneity in definitions and approaches to diagnose sarcopenic obesity was observed. This was mainly due to differences in the definitions of obesity and sarcopenia, in the methodologies used to assess body composition and physical function, and in the reference values for the variables that have been used (different cut-offs, interquartile analysis, diverse statistical stratification methods). This variability may be attributable, at least in part, to the availability of the methodologies in the different settings, to the variability in specialties and backgrounds of the researcher, and to the different settings (general population, clinical settings, etc.) where studies were performed. The results of the current work support the need for consensus proposals on: 1) definition of sarcopenic obesity; 2) diagnostic criteria both at the level of potential gold-standards and acceptable surrogates with wide clinical applicability, and with related cut-off values; 3) methodologies to be used in actions 1 and 2. First steps should be aimed at reaching consensus on plausible proposals that would need subsequent validation based on homogeneous studies and databases, possibly based on analyses of existing cohorts, to help define the prevalence of the condition, its clinical and functional relevance as well as most effective prevention and treatment strategies.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Sarcopenic obesity is a clinical and functional condition characterized by the coexistence of excess fat mass and sarcopenia. Currently, different definitions of sarcopenic obesity exist and its diagnostic criteria and cut-offs are not universally established. Therefore, the prevalence and sensitivity of this condition for any disease risk prediction is affected significantly.
AIM
This work was conducted under the auspices of the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) and the European Association for the Study of Obesity (EASO). An international expert panel performed a systematic review as an initial step to analyze and summarize the available scientific literature on the definitions and the diagnostic criteria for sarcopenic obesity proposed and/or applied in human studies to date.
METHODS
The present systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The search was conducted in April 2018 in three databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science). Human studies conducted in both sexes, irrespective of ethnicity, and published from 2007 to 2018 were included; cohorts of individuals with obesity and acute or chronic conditions and treatments reported to negatively influence skeletal muscle mass and function independently of obesity were excluded from final analyses. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) adapted for cross sectional studies.
RESULTS
The electronic search retrieved 2335 papers of which 75 met the eligibility criteria. A marked heterogeneity in definitions and approaches to diagnose sarcopenic obesity was observed. This was mainly due to differences in the definitions of obesity and sarcopenia, in the methodologies used to assess body composition and physical function, and in the reference values for the variables that have been used (different cut-offs, interquartile analysis, diverse statistical stratification methods). This variability may be attributable, at least in part, to the availability of the methodologies in the different settings, to the variability in specialties and backgrounds of the researcher, and to the different settings (general population, clinical settings, etc.) where studies were performed.
CONCLUSION
The results of the current work support the need for consensus proposals on: 1) definition of sarcopenic obesity; 2) diagnostic criteria both at the level of potential gold-standards and acceptable surrogates with wide clinical applicability, and with related cut-off values; 3) methodologies to be used in actions 1 and 2. First steps should be aimed at reaching consensus on plausible proposals that would need subsequent validation based on homogeneous studies and databases, possibly based on analyses of existing cohorts, to help define the prevalence of the condition, its clinical and functional relevance as well as most effective prevention and treatment strategies.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31813698
pii: S0261-5614(19)33151-6
doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2019.11.024
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Systematic Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

2368-2388

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Conflict of interest The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Auteurs

Lorenzo M Donini (LM)

Sapienza University, Rome, Italy. Electronic address: lorenzomaria.donini@uniroma1.it.

Luca Busetto (L)

University of Padua, Italy.

Juergen M Bauer (JM)

University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.

Stephan Bischoff (S)

University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany.

Yves Boirie (Y)

University of Clermont Auvergne, INRA, CRNH, CHU Clermont-Ferrand, France.

Tommy Cederholm (T)

Uppsala University, Sweden.

Alfonso J Cruz-Jentoft (AJ)

Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal (IRYCIS), Madrid, Spain.

Dror Dicker (D)

Sackler Faculty of Medicine Tel AVIV University, Spain.

Gema Frühbeck (G)

Clínica Universidad de Navarra, CIBEROBN, IdiSNA, Pamplona, Spain.

Andrea Giustina (A)

San Raffaele University Hospital, Milan, Italy.

Maria Cristina Gonzalez (MC)

Catholic University of Pelotas (UCPEL), Pelotas, RS, Brazil.

Ho-Seong Han (HS)

Seoul National University Bundang Hospital (SNUBH), South Korea.

Steven B Heymsfield (SB)

Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA, USA.

Takashi Higashiguchi (T)

Fujita Health University School of Medicine, Aichi, Japan.

Alessandro Laviano (A)

Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.

Andrea Lenzi (A)

Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.

Edda Parrinello (E)

Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.

Eleonora Poggiogalle (E)

Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.

Carla M Prado (CM)

University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Javier Salvador Rodriguez (JS)

Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.

Yves Rolland (Y)

Gerontopole of Toulouse, INSERM 1027, Toulouse University Hospital, France.

Ferruccio Santini (F)

University of Pisa, Italy.

Mario Siervo (M)

University of Nottingham, United Kingdom.

Francesco Tecilazich (F)

San Raffaele University Hospital, Milan, Italy.

Roberto Vettor (R)

University of Padua, Italy.

Jianchun Yu (J)

Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, China.

Mauro Zamboni (M)

University of Verona, Italy.

Rocco Barazzoni (R)

University of Trieste, Italy.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH