Age and Ageing 2010; 39: 412–423
doi: 10.1093/ageing/afq034
Published electronically 13 April 2010
©The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/),
which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in
any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
REPORT
Sarcopenia: European consensus on definition
and diagnosis
Report of the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People
ALFONSO J. CRUZ-JENTOFT1
, JEAN PIERRE BAEYENS2
, JÜRGEN M. BAUER3
, YVES BOIRIE4
,
TOMMY CEDERHOLM5
, FRANCESCO LANDI6
, FINBARR C. MARTIN7
, JEAN-PIERRE MICHEL8
,
YVES ROLLAND9
, STÉPHANE M. SCHNEIDER10
, EVA TOPINKOVÁ11
, MAURITS VANDEWOUDE12
,
MAURO ZAMBONI13
1
Servicio de Geriatría, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, Madrid, Spain
2
AZ Damiaan Hospital, Oostende, Belgium
3
Department of Geriatric Medicine, University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Nürnberg, Germany
4
Clermont Université, UFR Médecine, UMR 1019, F-63001 Clermont-Ferrand, France
5
Institutionen för Folkhälso- och Vårdvetenskap/Klinisk Nutrition och Metabolism, Uppsala Universitet, Uppsala, Sweden
6
Istituto di Medicina Interna e Geriatria, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Roma, Italy
7
Department of Ageing and Health, Guys and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
8
Département de Réhabilitation et Gériatrie, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Genève, Geneva, Switzerland
9
Gérontopôle de Toulouse, Hospital La Grave-Casselardit, Toulouse, France
10
Gastroentérologie et Nutrition Clinique, CHU de Nice, Université de Nice Sophia-Antipolis, Nice, France
11
Geriatrická Klinika 1 Lékařská Fakulta, Univerzita Karlova v Praze, Prague, Czech Republic
12
Department of Geriatrics, University of Antwerp, Ziekenhuisnetwerk Antwerpen (ZNA), Antwerp, Belgium
13
Department of Biomedical and Surgical Sciences, Division of Geriatrics, University of Verona, Verona, Italy
Address correspondence to: Alfonso J. Cruz-Jentoft, Servicio de Geriatría, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, Ctra. Colmenar,
km 9,1, 28034 Madrid, Spain. Tel: +34 913368172. Email: acruz.hrc@salud.madrid.org
Endorsed by the European Geriatric Medicine Society (EUGMS), the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism
(ESPEN), the International Association of Gerontology and Geriatrics—European Region (IAGG-ER) and the International Association
of Nutrition and Aging (IANA).
Abstract
The European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP) developed a practical clinical definition and
consensus diagnostic criteria for age-related sarcopenia. EWGSOP included representatives from four participant organisations,
i.e. the European Geriatric Medicine Society, the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism, the International
Association of Gerontology and Geriatrics—European Region and the International Association of Nutrition and Aging. These
organisations endorsed the findings in the final document.
The group met and addressed the following questions, using the medical literature to build evidence-based answers: (i) What
is sarcopenia? (ii) What parameters define sarcopenia? (iii) What variables reflect these parameters, and what measurement
tools and cut-off points can be used? (iv) How does sarcopenia relate to cachexia, frailty and sarcopenic obesity?
For the diagnosis of sarcopenia, EWGSOP recommends using the presence of both low muscle mass + low muscle function
(strength or performance). EWGSOP variously applies these characteristics to further define conceptual stages as ‘presarcopenia’,
‘sarcopenia’ and ‘severe sarcopenia’. EWGSOP reviewed a wide range of tools that can be used to measure the specific
variables of muscle mass, muscle strength and physical performance. Our paper summarises currently available data defining
sarcopenia cut-off points by age and gender; suggests an algorithm for sarcopenia case finding in older individuals based on
measurements of gait speed, grip strength and muscle mass; and presents a list of suggested primary and secondary outcome
domains for research.
Once an operational definition of sarcopenia is adopted and included in the mainstream of comprehensive geriatric assessment,
the next steps are to define the natural course of sarcopenia and to develop and define effective treatment.
Keywords: sarcopenia elderly muscle strength muscle mass physical performance
412
Downloadedfromhttps://academic.oup.com/ageing/article-abstract/39/4/412/8732byMasarykovaUniverzitauseron14February2020
Sarcopenia as a geriatric syndrome
A grave change associated with human ageing is progressive
decline in skeletal muscle mass, a downward spiral that may
lead to decreased strength and functionality. In 1989, Irwin
Rosenberg proposed the term ‘sarcopenia’ (Greek ‘sarx’ or
flesh + ‘penia’ or loss) to describe this age-related decrease
of muscle mass [1, 2]. Sarcopenia has since been defined as
the loss of skeletal muscle mass and strength that occurs
with advancing age [3]. However, a widely accepted definition
of sarcopenia suitable for use in research and clinical
practice is still lacking.
Geriatric syndromes are common, complex and costly
states of impaired health in older individuals. Geriatric syndromes
result from incompletely understood interactions of
disease and age on multiple systems, producing a constellation
of signs and symptoms. Delirium, falls and incontinence are
examples of geriatric syndromes [4]. We suggest it may be
likewise helpful to recognise sarcopenia as a geriatric syndrome
because this view promotes its identification and
treatment even when the exact causes remain unknown [5, 6].
What is the evidence that age-related sarcopenia fits the
current definition of a geriatric syndrome? Sarcopenia is
prevalent in older populations [7, 8]. Sarcopenia has multiple
contributing factors—the ageing process over the life
course, early life developmental influences, less-than-optimal
diet, bed rest or sedentary lifestyle, chronic diseases
and certain drug treatments [9–11]. Sarcopenia represents
an impaired state of health with a high personal toll—mobility
disorders, increased risk of falls and fractures, impaired
ability to perform activities of daily living, disabilities, loss of
independence and increased risk of death [12–16].
European Working Group on Sarcopenia in
Older People
Rationale and methods
While age-related sarcopenia is common and has huge personal
and financial costs, sarcopenia still has no broadly
accepted clinical definition, consensus diagnostic criteria,
International Classification of Diseases 9th Revision (ICD-9)
codes or treatment guidelines. To address these shortfalls,
the European Union Geriatric Medicine Society (EUGMS)
decided in 2009 to create a Sarcopenia Working Group that
would develop operational definitions and diagnostic criteria
for sarcopenia to be used in clinical practice as well as in research
studies. Other European scientific organisations (the
European Society of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism
[ESPEN], the International Academy of Nutrition and
Aging [IANA] and the International Association of Gerontology
and Geriatrics—European Region [IAGG-ER]) were
invited to join this group, accepted the request and nominated
representatives who became members of the
Sarcopenia Working Group.
The European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older
People (EWGSOP, the Sarcopenia Working Group) first
met in January 2009, followed by two additional meetings
during the year and by extensive email contacts. Literature
reviews and discussions were guided by the
following questions:
• What is sarcopenia?
• What parameters define sarcopenia?
• What variables will measure them, and what measurement
tools and cut-off points will be used?
• How does sarcopenia relate to other diseases/conditions?
The document developed by the Sarcopenia Working
Group was circulated to the Boards of the four participant
organisations (EUGMS, ESPEN, IAGG-ER, IANA) for input,
and then revised in accord with review comments, and
sent back to the organisations for final endorsement.
What is sarcopenia?
Working definition
Sarcopenia is a syndrome characterised by progressive and
generalised loss of skeletal muscle mass and strength with
a risk of adverse outcomes such as physical disability,
poor quality of life and death [17, 18]. The EWGSOP recommends
using the presence of both low muscle mass
and low muscle function (strength or performance) for
the diagnosis of sarcopenia. Thus, diagnosis requires documentation
of criterion 1 plus documentation of either
criterion 2 or criterion 3 (Table 1).
The rationale for use of two criteria is: muscle strength
does not depend solely on muscle mass, and the relationship
between strength and mass is not linear [18, 19]. Thus, defining
sarcopenia only in terms of muscle mass is too narrow
and may be of limited clinical value. Some have argued that
the term dynapenia is better suited to describe age-associated
loss of muscle strength and function [20]. However,
sarcopenia is already a widely recognised term, so replacing it
might lead to further confusion.
Mechanisms of sarcopenia
There are several mechanisms that may be involved in the
onset and progression of sarcopenia (Figure 1). These mechanisms
involve, among others, protein synthesis,
proteolysis, neuromuscular integrity and muscle fat content.
In an individual with sarcopenia, several mechanisms may be
involved, and relative contributions may vary over time. Recognising
these mechanisms and their underlying causes is
expected to facilitate design of intervention trials that target
one or more underlying mechanisms.
Table 1. Criteria for the diagnosis of sarcopenia
Diagnosis is based on documentation of criterion 1 plus (criterion 2 or
criterion 3)
............................................................
1. Low muscle mass
2. Low muscle strength
3. Low physical performance
Definition and diagnosis of sarcopenia
413
Downloadedfromhttps://academic.oup.com/ageing/article-abstract/39/4/412/8732byMasarykovaUniverzitauseron14February2020
Sarcopenia categories and stages
Sarcopenia is a condition with many causes and varying outcomes.
While sarcopenia is mainly observed in older people,
it can also develop in younger adults, as is likewise the case
for dementia and osteoporosis. In some individuals, a clear
and single cause of sarcopenia can be identified. In other
cases, no evident cause can be isolated. Thus, the categories
of primary sarcopenia and secondary sarcopenia may be useful
in clinical practice. Sarcopenia can be considered ‘primary’
(or age-related) when no other cause is evident but ageing itself,
while sarcopenia can be considered ‘secondary’ when one
or more other causes are evident (Table 2). In many older
people, the aetiology of sarcopenia is multi-factorial so that
it may not be possible to characterise each individual as having
a primary or secondary condition. This situation is consistent
with recognising sarcopenia as a multi-faceted geriatric
syndrome.
Sarcopenia staging, which reflects the severity of the
condition, is a concept that can help guide clinical management
of the condition. EWGSOP suggests a conceptual
staging as ‘presarcopenia’, ‘sarcopenia’ and ‘severe sarcopenia’
(Table 3). The ‘presarcopenia’ stage is characterised by
low muscle mass without impact on muscle strength or
physical performance. This stage can only be identified by
techniques that measure muscle mass accurately and in reference
to standard populations. The ‘sarcopenia’ stage is
characterised by low muscle mass, plus low muscle strength
or low physical performance. ‘Severe sarcopenia’ is the stage
identified when all three criteria of the definition are met
(low muscle mass, low muscle strength and low physical performance).
Recognising stages of sarcopenia may help in
selecting treatments and setting appropriate recovery goals.
Staging may also support design of research studies that
focus on a particular stage or on stage changes over time.
Sarcopenia and other syndromes
Sarcopenia is featured in other syndromes associated with
prominent muscle wasting. The main reason to differentiate
between them is to encourage research into age-related mechanisms
of sarcopenia and to guide targeted and
appropriate therapy for each.
Cachexia
‘Cachexia’ (Greek ‘cac’ or bad + ‘hexis’ or condition) is widely
recognised in older adults as severe wasting accompanying
disease states such as cancer, congestive cardiomyopathy
and end-stage renal disease [21]. Cachexia has recently
been defined as a complex metabolic syndrome associated
with underlying illness and characterised by loss of muscle
with or without loss of fat mass [22]. Cachexia is frequently
associated with inflammation, insulin resistance, anorexia
and increased breakdown of muscle proteins [23, 24].
Thus, most cachectic individuals are also sarcopenic, but
most sarcopenic individuals are not considered cachectic.
Sarcopenia is one of the elements of the proposed definition
for cachexia [22]. Very recently, a consensus paper
expanding this definition of cachexia and identifying relevant
issues on how to differentiate cachexia and sarcopenia
was published by ESPEN, one of the EWGSOP-endorsing
societies [25].
Frailty
Frailty is a geriatric syndrome resulting from age-related cumulative
declines across multiple physiologic systems, with
impaired homeostatic reserve and a reduced capacity of the
organism to withstand stress, thus increasing vulnerability to
adverse health outcomes including falls, hospitalisation, institutionalisation
and mortality [26, 27]. Fried et al. developed a
phenotypic definition of frailty based on readily identifiable
Figure 1. Mechanisms of sarcopenia.
Table 2. Sarcopenia categories by cause
Primary sarcopenia
Age-related
sarcopenia
No other cause evident except ageing
Secondary sarcopenia
Activity-related
sarcopenia
Can result from bed rest, sedentary lifestyle,
deconditioning or zero-gravity conditions
Disease-related
sarcopenia
Associated with advanced organ failure
(heart, lung, liver, kidney, brain), inflammatory
disease, malignancy or endocrine disease
Nutrition-related
sarcopenia
Results from inadequate dietary intake of energy
and/or protein, as with malabsorption, gastrointestinal
disorders or use of medications that cause anorexia
Table 3. EWGSOP conceptual stages of sarcopenia
Stage Muscle mass Muscle strength Performance
............................................................
Presarcopenia ↓
Sarcopenia ↓ ↓ Or ↓
Severe sarcopenia ↓ ↓ ↓
A.J. Cruz-Jentoft et al.
414
Downloadedfromhttps://academic.oup.com/ageing/article-abstract/39/4/412/8732byMasarykovaUniverzitauseron14February2020
physical aspects; three or more of the following characteristics
support a frailty diagnosis—unintended weight loss,
exhaustion, weakness, slow gait speed and low physical activity
[27]. Frailty and sarcopenia overlap; most frail older
people exhibit sarcopenia, and some older people with sarcopenia
are also frail. The general concept of frailty,
however, goes beyond physical factors to encompass psychological
and social dimensions as well, including
cognitive status, social support and other environmental
factors [26].
Sarcopenic obesity
In conditions such as malignancy, rheumatoid arthritis and
ageing, lean body mass is lost while fat mass may be preserved
or even increased [28]. This state is called sarcopenic obesity,
and thus the relationship between age-related reduction of
muscle mass and strength is often independent of body mass.
It had long been thought that age-related loss of weight, along
with loss of muscle mass, was largely responsible for muscle
weakness in older people [29]. However, it is now clear that
changes in muscle composition are also important, e.g. ‘marbling’,
or fat infiltration into muscle, lowers muscle quality and
work performance [30].
While weight changes vary widely between individuals,
certain patterns of age-related change in body composition
have been observed. In ageing men, the percentage of fat
mass increases initially, then levels off or decreases. Such
change has been attributed to an accelerated decrease in lean
mass, along with an initial increase and a later decrease in fat
mass [31]. Women show a generally similar pattern [31].
Intramuscular and visceral fat increase with ageing while
subcutaneous fat declines [18, 32, 33].
Identifying sarcopenia in research and
practice
The parameters of sarcopenia are the amount of muscle and
its function. The measurable variables are mass, strength and
physical performance. The challenge is to determine how
best to measure them accurately. It is also important to recognise
change by repeating the same measures over time in
the same individuals. The following sections briefly review
measurement techniques that can be used and discuss their
suitability for research and clinical practice settings.
Assessment techniques
Muscle mass
A wide range of techniques can be used to assess muscle
mass [34]. Cost, availability and ease of use can determine
whether the techniques are better suited to clinical practice
or are more useful for research. Table 4 lists the suggestions
of EWGSOP for use of these techniques in research and in
routine clinical practice.
Body imaging techniques. Three imaging techniques have been
used for estimating muscle mass or lean body mass—computed
tomography (CT scan), magnetic resonance imaging
(MRI) and dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). CT
and MRI are considered to be very precise imaging systems
that can separate fat from other soft tissues of the body, making
these methods gold standards for estimating muscle mass
in research. High cost, limited access to equipment at some
sites and concerns about radiation exposure limit the use of
these whole-body imaging methods for routine clinical practice
[8]. DXA is an attractive alternative method both for
research and for clinical use to distinguish fat, bone mineral
and lean tissues. This whole-body scan exposes the patient
to minimal radiation. The main drawback is that the equipment
is not portable, which may preclude its use in largescale
epidemiological studies [8].
> CT and MRI are gold standards for estimating muscle
mass in research. DXA is the preferred alternative method
for research and clinical use.
Bioimpedance analysis. Bioimpedance analysis (BIA) estimates
the volume of fat and lean body mass. The test
itself is inexpensive, easy to use, readily reproducible and appropriate
for both ambulatory and bedridden patients. BIA
measurement techniques, used under standard conditions,
have been studied for >10 years [35], and BIA results under
standard conditions have been found to correlate well with
MRI predictions [36]. Prediction equations have been validated
for multiethnic adults [36] and reference values
established for adult white men and women, including older
subjects [37–39]. Thus, BIA might be a good portable alternative
to DXA.
> BIA may be considered as a portable alternative
to DXA.
Table 4. Measurements of muscle mass, strength, and
function in research and practicea
Variable Research Clinical practice
............................................................
Muscle mass Computed tomography (CT) BIA
Magnetic resonance
imaging (MRI)
DXA
Dual energy X-ray
absorptiometry (DXA)
Anthropometry
Bioimpedance analysis (BIA)
Total or partial body
potassium per fat-free
soft tissue
Muscle strength Handgrip strength Handgrip strength
Knee flexion/extension
Peak expiratory flow
Physical performance Short Physical Performance
Battery (SPPB)
SPPB
Usual gait speed
Usual gait speed Get-up-and-go test
Timed get-up-and-go test
Stair climb power test
a
Please refer to the text for a description and references on these measurement
techniques.
Definition and diagnosis of sarcopenia
415
Downloadedfromhttps://academic.oup.com/ageing/article-abstract/39/4/412/8732byMasarykovaUniverzitauseron14February2020
Total or partial body potassium per fat-free soft tissue. As skeletal
muscle contains >50% of the total body potassium (TBK)
pool, TBK is the classic method for estimation of skeletal
muscle. More recently, partial body potassium (PBK) of
the arm has been proposed as a simpler alternative [40].
PBK of the arm is safe and inexpensive.
> TBK is the classic method for the estimation of skeletal
muscle, but this method is not used routinely.
Anthropometric measures. Calculations based on mid-upper
arm circumference and skin fold thickness have been used
to estimate muscle mass in ambulatory settings. Calf circumference
correlates positively with muscle mass; calf
circumference <31 cm has been associated with disability
[41]. However, age-related changes in fat deposits and loss
of skin elasticity contribute to errors of estimation in older
people. There are relatively few studies validating anthropometric
measures in older and obese people; these and other
confounders make anthropometric measures vulnerable to
error and questionable for individual use [14].
> Anthropometric measures are vulnerable to error
and not recommended for routine use in the diagnosis
of sarcopenia.
Muscle strength
There are fewer well-validated techniques to measure
muscle strength. Although lower limbs are more relevant
than upper limbs for gait and physical function, handgrip
strength has been widely used and is well correlated with
most relevant outcomes. Again, cost, availability and ease
of use can determine whether the techniques are better suited
to clinical practice or are useful for research (Table 4). It
must be remembered that factors unrelated to muscle, e.g.
motivation or cognition, may hamper the correct assessment
of muscle strength.
Handgrip strength. Isometric hand grip strength is strongly
related with lower extremity muscle power, knee
extension torque and calf cross-sectional muscle area
[13]. Low handgrip strength is a clinical marker of poor
mobility and a better predictor of clinical outcomes than
low muscle mass [13]. In practice, there is also a linear
relationship between baseline handgrip strength and incident
disability for activities of daily living (ADL) [42].
Muscle strength measures of different body compartments
are correlated, so when feasible, grip strength
measured in standard conditions with a well-studied
model of a handheld dynamometer with reference populations
can be a reliable surrogate for more complicated
measures of muscle strength in the lower arms or legs.
> Grip strength is a good simple measure of muscle
strength, and it correlates with leg strength.
Knee flexion/extension. Strength is about the magnitude of
force generation, whereas power is about work rate (work
done per unit time). In healthy older people, power is lost
faster than strength. Both are important, but power is a better
predictor of certain functional activities [43–45].
The ability of the muscle to generate force can be measured
in several ways. Leg extensor power can be
measured with a commercially available power rig [46].
Strength can be measured isometrically or isokinetically,
the latter being a closer reflection of muscle function in
everyday activity. Isometric strength testing of maximal
voluntary contractions can be measured with relatively simple
custom-made equipment. It is usually measured as the
force applied to the ankle, with the subject seated in an
adjustable straight-back chair, the lower leg unsupported
and the knee flexed to 90° [47]. Modern, commercial isokinetic
dynamometers allow both isometric and isokinetic
measurements of strength as concentric torque at various
angular velocities [48, 49]. Measurement is feasible in frail
older people [50, 51]. Some data are available for older populations
[52–54], but more are needed from a wider range
of ages and ethnicities. These techniques are suitable for
research studies, but their use in clinical practice is limited
by the need for special equipment and training.
> Knee flexion techniques are suitable for research studies,
but their use in clinical practice is limited by the need for
special equipment and training.
Peak expiratory flow. In people without lung disorders,
peak expiratory flow (PEF) is determined by the strength
of respiratory muscles. PEF is a cheap, simple and widely
accessible technique that has prognostic value [55, 56].
However, research on the use of PEF as a measure of
sarcopenia is limited, so PEF cannot be recommended
as an isolated measure of muscle strength at this time.
> PEF measures the strength of respiratory muscles, but
it cannot be recommended as an isolated measure.
Physical performance
A wide range of tests of physical performance are available,
including the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB),
usual gait speed, 6-min walk test and the stair climb power
test (Table 4) [57].
Short Physical Performance Battery. The SPPB evaluates balance,
gait, strength and endurance by examining an
individual’s ability to stand with the feet together in
side-by-side, semi-tandem and tandem positions, time to
walk 8 ft and time to rise from a chair and return to
the seated position five times [58]. It is a composite of
some separate tests that have also been used individually
in sarcopenia research. It has been recently recommended
by an international working group for use as a functional
outcome measure in clinical trials in frail older persons
[57]. Meaningful changes in the SPPB have been defined
[59, 60]. Thus, the SPPB can be used as a standard
measure of physical performance both for research and
in clinical practice.
> The SPPB, a composite measure of physical performance,
is a standard measure both for research and
clinical practice.
Usual gait speed. Buchner et al. first recognised a non-linear
relationship between leg strength and usual gait speed; this
A.J. Cruz-Jentoft et al.
416
Downloadedfromhttps://academic.oup.com/ageing/article-abstract/39/4/412/8732byMasarykovaUniverzitauseron14February2020
relationship explained how small changes in physiological
capacity may have substantial effects on performance in frail
adults, while large changes in capacity have little or no effect
in healthy adults [61]. Since then, a study by Guralnik et al.
suggested that timed usual gait provides a predictive value
for the onset of disability [62]. Most recently, Cesari et al.
confirmed the importance of gait speed (over a 6-m course)
as a predictor of adverse health events (severe mobility limitation,
mortality) but showed that poor performance on
other tests of lower extremity function (standing balance
and time to rise from a chair five times) had comparable
prognostic value [63]. Usual gait speed can be used in clinical
and research settings [57].
> Gait speed is part of the SPPB, but it can also be used
as a single parameter for clinical practice and research.
Timed get-up-and-go test. The timed get-up-and-go (TGUG)
test measures the time needed to complete a series of functionally
important tasks. TGUG requires the subject to
stand up from a chair, walk a short distance, turn around,
return and sit down again. It thus serves as an assessment
of dynamic balance. Balance function is observed and scored
on a five-point scale [64].
> The TGUG, used in geriatric assessment, can serve as
a performance measurement.
Stair climb power test. The stair climb power test (SCPT)
has been proposed as a clinically relevant measure of leg
power impairment [65]. SCPT results are consistent with
more complex techniques for measuring leg power (double
leg press at 40 and 70% of the one-repetition maximum;
DLP40, DLP70) and performance (SPPB with components
of gait speed chair stand time and standing balance). The
SCPT has been suggested for research settings [65].
> The SCPT may be useful in some research settings.
Defining cut-off points
Cut-off points depend upon the measurement technique
chosen and on the availability of reference studies. EWGSOP
recommends use of normative (healthy young adult)
rather than other predictive reference populations, with
cut-off points at two standard deviations below the mean
reference value. More research is urgently needed in order
to obtain good reference values for populations around
the world.
Various options to define sub-normal values for sarcopenia
designation have been suggested. The following
section provides some examples of how cut-off points
have been derived and validated by correlation with other
relevant clinical features.
Baumgartner et al. summed the muscle mass of the four
limbs from a DXA scan as appendicular skeletal muscle
mass (ASM) and defined a skeletal muscle mass index
(SMI) as ASM/height2
(kg/m2
) [66]. A SMI two standard
deviations below the mean SMI of young male and female
reference groups was defined as the gender-specific cut
point for sarcopenia. Defined in this way, sarcopenia was
significantly associated with physical disability and was independent
of ethnicity, age, comorbidity, health behaviours
and fat mass [66]. This method depends upon a measurement
of appendicular skeletal muscle mass by DXA or
estimation by BIA [19, 66].
In a cross-sectional survey of people aged ≥18 years in
the USA (n = 14,818 adults >18 years, including n = 4,504
adults >60 years), Janssen et al. [67] also used standard deviations
to define sarcopenia, measured in terms of skeletal
muscle index (SMI), where SMI = (skeletal muscle mass/
body mass) × 100. Subjects were considered to have a normal
SMI if their SMI was higher than one standard deviation
below the gender-specific mean for young adults (aged 18–
39 years). Class I sarcopenia was considered present in subjects
whose SMI was within one to two standard deviations
below mean values for young adults, and Class II sarcopenia
was present in subjects whose SMI was below two standard
deviations of young adult values. With these definitions, sarcopenia
was found to be a relatively common occurrence in
American men and women >60 years; the likelihood of
functional impairment and disability was two times greater
in older men and three times greater in older women with
Class II sarcopenia compared to older people who had a
normal SMI.
Newman et al. [68] performed an observational cohort
study of older people living in the USA (ages 70–79 years,
n = 2,984, 52% women, 41% black). Participants were assessed
using DXA and were classified as sarcopenic using
two different approaches to adjust lean mass to body size:
appendicular lean mass divided by height squared (aLM/ht2
)
and appendicular lean mass adjusted for height and body fat
mass (residuals). Because population norms for young adult
blacks and whites are not currently available, the genderspecific
20th percentile was arbitrarily chosen as the cutoff
point for each method. In men, both classifications of
sarcopenia were associated with smoking, poorer health,
lower activity and impaired lower extremity function. In
women, the classification based on both height and fat mass
was more strongly associated with impaired lower extremity
function, while other associations were fewer. As a result of
these findings, the authors suggested that fat mass should be
considered in estimating prevalence of sarcopenia in women
and in overweight or obese individuals [68].
Norman et al. conducted a study that investigated the
association between BIA and muscle function [69]. The
study investigated the association between resistance and
reactance normalised for height (R/H and Xc/H) and
hand grip strength, an assessment of muscle function.
The study included 363 men and women with a mean
age of 63.1 years. Patients were grouped in quintiles by
hand grip strength. Results showed that BIA resistance
and reactance normalised for height were both associated
with hand grip strength independent of other predictors of
hand grip strength, such as age and gender. Xc/H was
positively correlated with increases in hand grip strength,
while R/H was negatively correlated with strength; significant
differences in hand grip strength by quintile were
associated with vector migration in the RXc graph. The reDefinition
and diagnosis of sarcopenia
417
Downloadedfromhttps://academic.oup.com/ageing/article-abstract/39/4/412/8732byMasarykovaUniverzitauseron14February2020
searchers concluded that BIA was a clinically relevant
measure muscle function, which would be particularly useful
for patients unable or unwilling to perform grip
strength tests.
Table 5 shows some cut-off points available from the sarcopenia
literature, based on normative populations when
available or on predictive populations when normative
population data were unavailable.
Sarcopenia screening and assessment
Identifying subjects with sarcopenia, both for clinical practice
and for selection of individuals for clinical trials, seems
to be an important task. The EWGSOP has developed a
suggested algorithm based on gait speed measurement as
the easiest and most reliable way to begin sarcopenia case
finding or screening in practice (Figure 2). A cut-off point
of >0.8 m/s identifies risk for sarcopenia [70].
Treatment outcomes for research
While reduced mobility and functionality are increasingly
prevalent in older people, only a handful of clinical trials
are under way to test potential sarcopenia treatments. The
absence of standardised primary outcomes is a major challenge
for the design of such studies. For intervention trials,
EWGSOP presently recommends three primary outcome
variables—muscle mass, muscle strength and physical perTable
5. Diagnosis of sarcopenia: measurable variables and cut-off points
Criterion Measurement
method
Cut-off points by gender Reference group defined Ref
.............................................................................................................................
Muscle mass DXA Skeletal muscle mass index (SMI) Based on 2 SD below
mean of young adults
(Rosetta Study)
[66]
(Appendicular skeletal muscle mass/height2
)
Men: 7.26 kg/m2
Women: 5.5 kg/m2
SMI (ASM/height2
) Based on sex-specific
lowest 20% of study
group (n = 2,976)
[17]
Men: 7.25 kg/m2
Women: 5.67 kg/m2
SMI (ASM/height2
) Based on sex-specific
lowest 20% (Health
ABC Study)
[68]
Men: 7.23 kg/m2
Women: 5.67 kg/m2
Residuals of linear regression on
appendicular lean mass adjusted for fat
mass as well as height
Based on sex-specific
lowest 20% (Health
ABC Study)
[68]
Men: −2.29
Women: −1.73
BIA SMI using BIA predicted skeletal muscle mass
(SM) equation (SM/height2
)
Based on 2 SD below
mean of young adults
in study group (n = 200)
[8]
Men: 8.87 kg/m2
Women: 6.42 kg/m2
SMI using absolute muscle mass,
not appendicular muscle mass
Based on statistical analysis
of NHANES III data on
older (≥60 years) men
and women
[19, 67]
(absolute muscle mass/height2
)
Men:
Severe sarcopenia ≤8.50 kg/m2
Moderate sarcopenia 8.51–10.75 kg/m2
Normal muscle ≥10.76 kg/m2
Women:
Severe sarcopenia ≤5.75 kg/m2
Moderate sarcopenia 5.76–6.75 kg/m2
Normal muscle ≥6.76 kg/m2
Muscle
strength
Handgrip
strength
Men: <30 kg Based on statistical analysis
of study group (n = 1,030)
[13]
Women: <20 kg
Men: Based on quartiles of study group (n = 5,317) [27]
BMI ≤ 24 ≤ 29 kg
BMI 24.1–26 ≤ 30 kg
BMI 26.1–28 ≤ 30 kg
BMI > 28 ≤ 32 kg
Women:
BMI ≤ 23 ≤ 17 kg
BMI 23.1–26 ≤ 17.3 kg
BMI 26.1–29 ≤ 18 kg
BMI > 29 ≤ 21 kg
A.J. Cruz-Jentoft et al.
418
Downloadedfromhttps://academic.oup.com/ageing/article-abstract/39/4/412/8732byMasarykovaUniverzitauseron14February2020
formance (Table 6). Other outcomes can be considered secondary
and of particular interest in specific research areas
and intervention trials.
For each of these outcomes, one or more variables can
be measured. Selection of measurement tools for research
studies will depend on availability, access to data for relevant
reference populations (considering age, gender and ethnicity),
type of study (longitudinal vs cross-sectional), aim of
the study and cost.
Challenges of managing sarcopenia
Depending on the literature definition used for sarcopenia,
the prevalence in 60–70-year-olds is reported as 5–13%,
while the prevalence ranges from 11 to 50% in people
>80 years [71]. The number of people around the world
aged ≥60 years was estimated at 600 million in the year
2000, a figure that is expected to rise to 1.2 billion by 2025
and 2 billion by 2050 [72]. Even with a conservative estimate
of prevalence, sarcopenia affects >50 million people today
and will affect >200 million in the next 40 years.
The impact of sarcopenia on older people is far reaching;
its substantial tolls are measured in terms of morbidity [73],
disability [67], high costs of health care [74] and mortality
[75]. Because the consequences of sarcopenia in older people
are serious and life-changing, health care professionals everywhere
are challenged to work together to turn our growing
body of knowledge into actions that will improve the health
and wellbeing of millions of older people around the world.
Once an operational definition of sarcopenia is adopted
and included in the mainstream of comprehensive geriatric
assessment, the next steps are to define the natural course of
sarcopenia and to develop and define effective treatment.
To this end, the ESWGOP committee members and their
allied organisations encourage health care professionals to
seek answers to the following questions:
• What is the role of nutrition in prevention and treatment
of age-related sarcopenia? What amounts of macronutrients
are needed for older people with or at risk for
sarcopenia, especially protein and specific amino acids?
What micronutrients, e.g. vitamin D, play important roles
in protecting and building lean body mass? And does the
timing for intake of meals and/or dietary supplements
make a difference?
• What is the role of physical activity in prevention and
treatment of sarcopenia in older people? What exercises
Table 5. (Continued )
Criterion Measurement
method
Cut-off points by gender Reference group defined Ref
.............................................................................................................................
Physical performance SPPB SPPB ≤8 SPPB score is a summation of scores
on three tests: Balance, Gait Speed and Chair Stand.
Each test is weighted equally with scores between
0 and 4—quartiles generated from Established
Populations for Epidemiologic
Studies of the Elderly (EPESE) data (n = 6,534).
The maximum score on the SPPB is 12
[62]
SPPB 0–6 Low performance
SPPB 7–9 Intermediate performance
SPPB 10–12 High Performance
Gait speed 6-m course Based on statistical analysis of Health
ABC participant data
[63]
GS <1 m/s
6-m course Based on ROC curves analysis of
Health ABC data
[63]
GS <1.175 m/s
15-ft (4.572 m) course Based on quartiles of study group
(n = 5,317)
[27]
Men:
Height ≤ 173 cm ≥ 7 s (GS < 0.65 m/s)
Height > 173 cm ≥ 6 s (GS < 0.76 m/s)
Women:
Height ≤ 159 cm ≥ 7 s (GS < 0.65 m/s)
Height > 159 cm ≥ 6 s (GS < 0.76 m/s)
4-m course Based on statistical analysis of
study group (n = 1,030)
[13]
GS <0.8 m/s
8-ft (2.438 m) course Based on SPPB values
Quartiles of performance:
≤0.43 m/s
0.44–0.60 m/s
0.61–0.77 m/s
≥0.78 m/s
Definition and diagnosis of sarcopenia
419
Downloadedfromhttps://academic.oup.com/ageing/article-abstract/39/4/412/8732byMasarykovaUniverzitauseron14February2020
are best suited and most effective for older people? How
can older people be enabled to take more habitual physical
activity? For people who have marked physical limitations,
are there alternatives to traditional exercise programmes?
How can nutrition and exercise regimens be combined for
prevention of treatment of sarcopenia?
• Do any specific medications have sufficient evidencebased
support for treatment of sarcopenia? If not, what
are the current candidate drugs? What study designs and
outcome measures will be acceptable for drug labelling?
Summary and conclusions
Several European organisations working in nutrition and
geriatric medicine created a joint European Working Group
on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP). This final
EWGSOP paper offers a working definition of sarcopenia,
summarises what is currently known about underlying mechanisms
and reviews techniques for measuring variables of
sarcopenia. This paper also offers guidelines for use of these
tools as a way to identify sarcopenia and evaluate treatment
effectiveness, and offers advice about which tools are best
suited for clinical practice and for research studies. Further,
examples of currently used cut-off points for the diagnosis
of sarcopenia are offered. Based on increased awareness of
sarcopenia in older people and widespread use of tools for
screening and assessment, the ultimate goal is to identify
dietary strategies, lifestyle changes and treatments that can
prevent or delay the onset of sarcopenia.
Key points
• Age-related sarcopenia is common and has huge personal
and financial costs.
• This paper presents a clinical definition and consensus
diagnostic criteria for sarcopenia, as developed by the
European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older
People (EWGSOP) and endorsed by four participating
professional medical societies.
Table 6. Suggested primary and secondary outcome domains
for intervention trials in sarcopenia
Primary outcome domains
• Physical performance
• Muscle strength
• Muscle mass
Secondary outcome domains
• Activities of daily living (ADL; basic, instrumental)
• Quality of life (QOL)
• Metabolic and biochemical markers
• Markers of inflammation
• Global impression of change by subject or physician
• Falls
• Admission to nursing home or hospital
• Social support
• Mortality
* Comorbidity and individual circumstances that may explain each finding must be considered
+ This algorithm can also be applied to younger individuals at risk
Older subject
(> 65 years) +
Measure gait
speed
> 0.8 m/s ≤ 0.8 m/s
Measure grip
strength
Normal Low
No sarcopenia
Measure muscle
mass
Low Normal
No sarcopeniaSarcopenia
Figure 2. EWGSOP-suggested algorithm for sarcopenia case finding in older individuals.
A.J. Cruz-Jentoft et al.
420
Downloadedfromhttps://academic.oup.com/ageing/article-abstract/39/4/412/8732byMasarykovaUniverzitauseron14February2020
• The overall goal was to compile a set of tools that
would promote recognition and treatment of age-related
sarcopenia in practice and also encourage
conduct of well-designed research studies of its causes
and consequences.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Dr Cecilia Hofmann, medical writer,
for her assistance in preparing the final version of the
manuscript. She provided library and bibliography
management support, edited the draft prepared by
committee members and formatted the manuscript for
publication.
Grant support: The EUGMS received a grant from Abbott
Nutrition International (ANI) to fund the European Working
Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP). This
grant was used for operational activities of the EUGMS and
for funding the three meetings of the Working Group. Abbott
had no role in the choice of members of the group, but
had the right to have an observer member at the
meetings. Members of the Working Group received no
salary or other incomes from the EUGMS, ANI or any
other organisation for any of the tasks involved in the
preparation of this manuscript or for attending the
meetings of the group.
References
1. Rosenberg I. Summary comments: epidemiological and methodological
problems in determining nutritional status of older
persons. Am J Clin Nutr 1989; 50: 1231–3.
2. Rosenberg IH. Sarcopenia: origins and clinical relevance. J
Nutr 1997; 127: 990S–91S.
3. Morley JE, Baumgartner RN, Roubenoff R et al. Sarcopenia. J
Lab Clin Med 2001; 137: 231–43.
4. Inouye SK, Studenski S, Tinetti ME et al. Geriatric syndromes:
clinical, research, and policy implications of a core geriatric
concept. J Am Geriatr Soc 2007; 55: 780–91.
5. Olde Rikkert MG, Rigaud AS, van Hoeyweghen RJ et al. Geriatric
syndromes: medical misnomer or progress in geriatrics?
Neth J Med 2003; 61: 83–7.
6. Cruz-Jentoft A, Landi F, Topinková E et al. Understanding sarcopenia
as a geriatric syndrome. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab
Care 2010; 13: 1–7.
7. Iannuzzi-Sucich M, Prestwood KM, Kenny AM. Prevalence of
sarcopenia and predictors of skeletal muscle mass in healthy,
older men and women. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2002;
57: M772–7.
8. Chien MY, Huang TY, Wu YT. Prevalence of sarcopenia estimated
using a bioelectrical impedance analysis prediction
equation in community-dwelling elderly people in Taiwan. J
Am Geriatr Soc 2008; 56: 1710–5.
9. Paddon-Jones D, Short KR, Campbell WW et al. Role of dietary
protein in the sarcopenia of aging. Am J Clin Nutr 2008;
87: 1562S–6S.
10. Sayer AA, Syddall H, Martin H et al. The developmental origins
of sarcopenia. J Nutr Health Aging 2008; 12: 427–32.
11. Thompson DD. Aging and sarcopenia. J Musculoskelet Neuronal
Interact 2007; 7: 344–5.
12. Cawthon PM, Marshall LM, Michael Y et al. Frailty in older
men: prevalence, progression, and relationship with mortality.
J Am Geriatr Soc 2007; 55: 1216–23.
13. Laurentani F, Russo C, Bandinelli S et al. Age-associated
changes in skeletal muscles and their effect on mobility: an
operational diagnosis of sarcopenia. J Appl Physiol 2003; 95:
1851–60.
14. Rolland Y, Czerwinski S, Abellan Van Kan G et al. Sarcopenia:
its assessment, etiology, pathogenesis, consequences and future
perspectives. J Nutr Health Aging 2008; 12: 433–50.
15. Topinkova E. Aging, disability and frailty. Ann Nutr Metab
2008; 526–11.
16. Hartman MJ, Fields DA, Byrne NM et al. Resistance training
improves metabolic economy during functional tasks in older
adults. J Strength Cond Res 2007; 21: 91–5.
17. Delmonico MJ, Harris TB, Lee JS et al. Alternative definitions
of sarcopenia, lower extremity performance, and functional
impairment with aging in older men and women. J Am Geriatr
Soc 2007; 55: 769–74.
18. Goodpaster BH, Park SW, Harris TB et al. The loss of skeletal
muscle strength, mass, and quality in older adults: The health,
aging and body composition study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med
Sci 2006; 61: 1059–64.
19. Janssen I, Baumgartner R, Ross R et al. Skeletal muscle cutpoints
associated with elevated physical disability risk in
older men and women. Am J Epidemiol 2004; 159: 413–21.
20. Clark BC, Manini TM. Sarcopenia ≠ dynapenia. J Gerontol A
Biol Sci Med Sci 2008; 63: 829–34.
21. Thomas DR. Loss of skeletal muscle mass in aging: examining
the relationship of starvation, sarcopenia and cachexia. Clin
Nutr 2007; 26: 389–99.
22. Evans WJ, Morley JE, Argiles J et al. Cachexia: a new definition.
Clin Nutr 2008; 27: 793–9.
23. Morley JE, Anker SD, Evans WJ. Cachexia and aging: an update
based on the Fourth International Cachexia Meeting. J
Nutr Health Aging 2009; 13: 47–55.
24. Durham WJ, Dillon EL, Sheffield-Moore M. Inflammatory
burden and amino acid metabolism in cancer cachexia. Curr
Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 2009; 12: 72–7.
25. Muscaritoli M, Anker SD, Argiles J et al. Consensus definition
of sarcopenia, cachexia and pre-cachexia: joint document elaborated
by Special Interest Groups (SIG) “cachexia–anorexia
in chronic wasting diseases” and “nutrition in geriatrics”. Clin
Nutr 2010; 29: 154–9.
26. Bauer JM, Sieber CC. Sarcopenia and frailty: a clinician's controversial
point of view. Exp Gerontol 2008; 43: 674–8.
27. Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J et al. Frailty in older adults:
evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2001;
56: M146–56.
28. Prado CM, Lieffers JR, McCargar LJ et al. Prevalence and clinical
implications of sarcopenic obesity in patients with solid
tumours of the respiratory and gastrointestinal tracts: a population-based
study. Lancet Oncol 2008; 9: 629–35.
29. Stenholm S, Harris TB, Rantanen T et al. Sarcopenic obesity:
definition, cause and consequences. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab
Care 2008; 11: 693–700.
30. Visser M, Kritchevsky SB, Goodpaster BH et al. Leg muscle
mass and composition in relation to lower extremity performDefinition
and diagnosis of sarcopenia
421
Downloadedfromhttps://academic.oup.com/ageing/article-abstract/39/4/412/8732byMasarykovaUniverzitauseron14February2020
ance in men and women aged 70 to 79: the health, aging and
body composition study. J Am Geriatr Soc 2002; 50: 897–904.
31. Ding J, Kritchevsky SB, Newman AB et al. Effects of birth
cohort and age on body composition in a sample of community-based
elderly. Am J Clin Nutr 2007; 85: 405–10.
32. Hughes VA, Roubenoff R, Wood M et al. Anthropometric assessment
of 10-y changes in body composition in the elderly.
Am J Clin Nutr 2004; 80: 475–82.
33. Song MY, Ruts E, Kim J et al. Sarcopenia and increased adipose
tissue infiltration of muscle in elderly African American
women. Am J Clin Nutr 2004; 79: 874–80.
34. Lukasi H, ed. Heymsfield M et al, ed. Assessing muscle mass.
Human body composition. Champaign, IL, USA: Human Kinetics,
2005.
35. NIH. Bioelectrical impedance analysis in body composition
measurement: National Institutes of Health Technology Assessment
Conference Statement. Am J Clin Nutr 1996; 64:
524S–32S.
36. Janssen I, Heymsfield SB, Baumgartner RN et al. Estimation of
skeletal muscle mass by bioelectrical impedance analysis. J
Appl Physiol 2000; 89: 465–71.
37. Kyle UG, Genton L, Slosman DO et al. Fat-free and fat mass
percentiles in 5225 healthy subjects aged 15 to 98 years. Nutrition
2001; 17: 534–41.
38. Roubenoff R, Baumgartner RN, Harris TB et al. Application of
bioelectrical impedance analysis to elderly populations. J Gerontol
A Biol Sci Med Sci 1997; 52: M129–36.
39. Kyle UG, Genton L, Karsegard L et al. Single prediction equation
for bioelectrical impedance analysis in adults aged 20–94
years. Nutrition 2001; 17: 248–53.
40. Wielopolski L, Ramirez LM, Gallagher D et al. Measuring partial
body potassium in the arm versus total body potassium. J
Appl Physiol 2006; 101: 945–9.
41. Rolland Y, Lauwers-Cances V, Cournot M et al. Sarcopenia, calf
circumference, and physical function of elderly women: a
cross-sectional study. J Am Geriatr Soc 2003; 51: 1120–4.
42. Al Snih S, Markides K, Ottenbacher K et al. Hand grip strength
and incident ADL disability in elderly Mexican Americans over a
seven-year period. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2004; 16: 481–6.
43. Bean JF, Kiely DK, Herman S et al. The relationship between
leg power and physical performance in mobility-limited older
people. J Am Geriatr Soc 2002; 50: 461–7.
44. Suzuki T, Bean JF, Fielding RA. Muscle power of the ankle
flexors predicts functional performance in community-dwelling
older women. J Am Geriatr Soc 2001; 49: 1161–7.
45. Foldvari M, Clark M, Laviolette LC et al. Association of muscle
power with functional status in community-dwelling elderly
women. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2000; 55: M192–9.
46. Bassey EJ, Short AH. A new method for measuring power
output in a single leg extension: feasibility, reliability and validity.
Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 1990; 60: 385–90.
47. Edwards RH, Young A, Hosking GP et al. Human skeletal
muscle function: description of tests and normal values. Clin
Sci Mol Med 1977; 52: 283–90.
48. Feiring DC, Ellenbecker TS, Derscheid GL. Test–retest reliability
of the biodex isokinetic dynamometer. J Orthop
Sports Phys Ther 1990; 11: 298–300.
49. Hartmann A, Knols R, Murer K et al. Reproducibility of an
isokinetic strength-testing protocol of the knee and ankle in
older adults. Gerontology 2009; 55: 259–68.
50. Brown M, Sinacore DR, Binder EF et al. Physical and performance
measures for the identification of mild to moderate frailty.
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2000; 55: M350–5.
51. Callahan D, Phillips E, Carabello R et al. Assessment of lower
extremity muscle power in functionally-limited elders. Aging
Clin Exp Res 2007; 19: 194–9.
52. Neder JA, Nery LE, Shinzato GT et al. Reference values for
concentric knee isokinetic strength and power in nonathletic
men and women from 20 to 80 years old. J Orthop Sports
Phys Ther 1999; 29: 116–26.
53. Goodpaster BH, Carlson CL, Visser M et al. Attenuation of
skeletal muscle and strength in the elderly: The Health ABC
Study. J Appl Physiol 2001; 90: 2157–65.
54. Newman AB, Haggerty CL, Goodpaster B et al. Strength and
muscle quality in a well-functioning cohort of older adults: The
health, aging and body composition study. J Am Geriatr Soc
2003; 51: 323–30.
55. Chen HI, Kuo CS. Relationship between respiratory muscle
function and age, sex, and other factors. J Appl Physiol
1989; 66: 943–8.
56. Kim J, Davenport P, Sapienza C. Effect of expiratory muscle
strength training on elderly cough function. Arch Gerontol
Geriatr 2009; 48: 361–6.
57. Working Group on Functional Outcome Measures for Clinical
TrialsFunctional outcomes for clinical trials in frail older persons:
time to be moving. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2008;
63: 160–4.
58. Guralnik JM, Simonsick EM, Ferrucci L et al. A short
physical performance battery assessing lower extremity
function: association with self-reported disability and prediction
of mortality and nursing home admission. J
Gerontol 1994; 49: M85–94.
59. Perera S, Mody SH, Woodman RC et al. Meaningful change
and responsiveness in common physical performance measures
in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 2006; 54: 743–9.
60. Kwon S, Perera S, Pahor M et al. What is a meaningful
change in physical performance? Findings from a clinical
trial in older adults (the LIFE-P study). J Nutr Health
Aging 2009; 13: 538–44.
61. Buchner DM, Larson EB, Wagner EH et al. Evidence for a
non-linear relationship between leg strength and gait speed.
Age Ageing 1996; 25: 386–91.
62. Guralnik JM, Ferrucci L, Pieper CF et al. Lower extremity
function and subsequent disability: consistency across studies,
predictive models, and value of gait speed alone compared
with the short physical performance battery. J Gerontol A Biol
Sci Med Sci 2000; 55: M221–31.
63. Cesari M, Kritchevsky SB, Newman AB et al. Added value of
physical performance measures in predicting adverse health-related
events: results from the health, aging and body
composition study. J Am Geriatr Soc 2009; 57: 251–9.
64. Mathias S, Nayak US, Isaacs B. Balance in elderly patients:
the “get-up and go” test. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1986; 67:
387–9.
65. Bean JF, Kiely DK, LaRose S et al. Is stair climb power a clinically
relevant measure of leg power impairments in at-risk
older adults? Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2007; 88: 604–9.
66. Baumgartner R, Koehler K, Gallagher D et al. Epidemiology of
sarcopenia among the elderly in New Mexico. Am J Epidemiol
1998; 147: 755–63.
A.J. Cruz-Jentoft et al.
422
Downloadedfromhttps://academic.oup.com/ageing/article-abstract/39/4/412/8732byMasarykovaUniverzitauseron14February2020
67. Janssen I, Heymsfield SB, Ross R. Low relative skeletal muscle
mass (sarcopenia) in older persons is associated with functional
impairment and physical disability. J Am Geriatr Soc 2002; 50:
889–96.
68. Newman A, Kupelian V, Visser M et al. Sarcopenia: alternative
definitions and association with lower extremity function. J
Am Geriatr Soc 2003; 51: 1602–9.
69. Norman K, Pirlich M, Sorensen J et al. Bioimpedance vector
analysis as a measure of muscle function. Clin Nutr 2009; 28:
78–82.
70. Abellan van Kan G, Rolland Y, Onder G et al. Gait speed as a
marker of adverse outcomes. J Nutr Health Aging 2009; 13:
881–9.
71. Morley JE. Sarcopenia: diagnosis and treatment. J Nutr Health
Aging 2008; 12: 452–6.
72. World Health Organization. Ageing and life course.
2009 [cited 2009 April 30]; Available from: http://
www.who.int/ageing/en/.
73. Sayer AA, Dennison EM, Syddall HE et al. Type 2
diabetes, muscle strength, and impaired physical function:
the tip of the iceberg? Diabetes Care 2005; 28:
2541–2.
74. Janssen I, Shepard DS, Katzmarzyk PT et al. The healthcare
costs of sarcopenia in the United States. J Am Geriatr
Soc 2004; 52: 80–5.
75. Gale CR, Martyn CN, Cooper C et al. Grip strength,
body composition, and mortality. Int J Epidemiol 2007;
36: 228–35.
Accepted in revised form 25 February 2010
Definition and diagnosis of sarcopenia
423
Downloadedfromhttps://academic.oup.com/ageing/article-abstract/39/4/412/8732byMasarykovaUniverzitauseron14February2020