4.3 Review

Protein Intake and Sarcopenia in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19148718

Keywords

nutrition; anorexia; physical function; walking speed; muscle strength; dynapenia; frailty; elderly

Funding

  1. Universita Cattolica del Sacro Cuore [D1.2020]
  2. nonprofit research foundation Centro Studi Achille e Linda Lorenzon
  3. Ministero della SaluteRicerca Corrente 2022

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the association between protein intake and sarcopenia in older adults. The results indicated that older adults with sarcopenia consumed significantly less protein compared to their peers without sarcopenia. Inadequate protein intake may be associated with sarcopenia in older adults.
Background: The present systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the cross-sectional and longitudinal associations between protein intake and sarcopenia in older adults. Methods: Observational studies that investigated the association between protein intake and sarcopenia as the primary or secondary outcome in people aged 60 years and older were included. Studies published in languages other than English, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish were excluded. Studies were retrieved from MEDLINE, SCOPUS, EMBASE, CINAHL, AgeLine, and Food Science Source databases through January 31, 2022. A pooled effect size was calculated based on standard mean differences. Results: Five cross-sectional studies, one longitudinal study, and one case-control study that investigated 3353 community-dwelling older adults with a mean age of approximately 73 years were included. The meta-analysis of four studies indicated that older adults with sarcopenia consumed significantly less protein than their peers with no sarcopenia. Conclusions: Results of the present study suggest that an inadequate protein intake might be associated with sarcopenia in older adults.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available