{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: Start with muscle mass or muscle strength in diagnosis and management of sarcopenia? A systematic review of guidance documents.
{Author}: Zhang Y;Guo JY;Wang F;Li CW;Yu K;
{Journal}: Asia Pac J Clin Nutr
{Volume}: 33
{Issue}: 2
{Year}: 2024 Jun
{Factor}: 1.322
{DOI}: 10.6133/apjcn.202406_33(2).0011
{Abstract}: <B>OBJECTIVE: </B>Sarcopenia has garnered extensive attention in clinical practice since its high prevalence and significant impact on clinical outcomes. Multiple organizations have published guidance documents on sarcopenia, offering evidence-based recommendations for clinical practice and/or research. We aimed to appraise the methodological quality of the included documents and synthesize available recommendations for the screening, diagnosis, and intervention of sarcopenia.<BR><B>METHODS: </B>We conducted a search on PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, guideline database, and guideline organizations and professional societies websites for clinical practices, consensus statements and position papers in terms of sarcopenia, muscle atrophy or muscle loss published before April 17, 2023. The AGREE II instrument was used by three independent reviewers to assess the methodological quality of these documents.<BR><B>RESULTS: </B>Thirty-six guidance documents published between 2010 and 2023 were included. Seven documents fulfilled ≥ 50% of all the AGREE II domains. Seven underwent a Delphi process and six graded the strength of the recommendations. The process of screening (n=21), early diagnosis of sarcopenia (n=12), diagnosis of sarcopenia and severe sarcopenia (n=10), and management (n=21) were increasingly recommended. SARC-F (n=14) was the most recommended screening tool, and the assessment of muscle function was considered the first step in diagnosing sarcopenia. The management strategy for both age-related and disease-related sarcopenia mainly focused on exercise and nutrition intervention.<BR><B>CONCLUSIONS: </B>The guidance documents have provided referential recommendations that have great guiding significance. But the inconsistency in recommendations and variation in methodological rigour suggests that high-quality evidence is lacking yet.