HoldsUp

Yeung · Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle 2019 · systematic review and meta-analysis · n=36 studies (52,838 participants)

Sarcopenia and its association with falls and fractures in older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Cited 1109 times in the scientific literature.

Level 1 - systematic review of randomized trials

Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

PubMed 30993881 · doi:10.1002/jcsm.12411 · record verified 2026-08-30

What was done

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted across MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and CINAHL through May 2018. Inclusion criteria required English-language studies of older adults (mean/median age ≥65 years) assessing sarcopenia (per study authors' definitions) and fall or fracture outcomes. Pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated, with subgroup analyses by study design, population, sex, sarcopenia definition, continent, and study quality.

What was found

Thirty-six studies (52,838 individuals; 48.8% female; mean age 65.0–86.7 years) were systematically reviewed, and 33 studies (45,926 individuals) were meta-analyzed. Sarcopenia was significantly associated with falls in cross-sectional studies (OR 1.60; 95% CI 1.37–1.86, P < 0.001, I² = 34%) and prospective studies (OR 1.89; 95% CI 1.33–2.68, P < 0.001, I² = 37%). Sarcopenia was also significantly associated with fractures in cross-sectional studies (OR 1.84; 95% CI 1.30–2.62, P = 0.001, I² = 91%) and prospective studies (OR 1.71; 95% CI 1.44–2.03, P = 0.011, I² = 0%).

Why it matters

This review establishes a robust, consistent link between sarcopenia and elevated risks of both falls and fractures in older adults, reinforcing the rationale for routine screening and targeted intervention programs.

Limits

All included studies were observational (cross-sectional and prospective cohort), precluding causal conclusions. Sarcopenia definitions varied across included studies rather than adhering to a single standard. High heterogeneity was present among cross-sectional fracture analyses (I² = 91%), and non-English studies were excluded.

Cited by