4.7 Article

Prevalence of Sarcopenia and Sarcopenic Obesity in the Korean Population Based on the Fourth Korean National Health and Nutritional Examination Surveys

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/gerona/gls071

关键词

Sarcopenia; Sarcopenic obesity; Prevalence; Korean population; KNHANES

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF)
  2. Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology [2011-0004765]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sarcopenia is an important factor of functional impairment related to aging. This study is conducted to investigate the prevalence of sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity in Korean population. Representative Korean men (4,486) and women (5,999) aged 20 years or older were analyzed from the Fourth Korean National Health and Nutritional Examination Surveys. Sarcopenia was classified into Class I defined relative skeletal muscle mass loss within 1-2 SD of the gender-specific mean for healthy young adults and Class II below 2 SD. Relative skeletal muscle mass was represented by the appendicular skeletal muscle mass adjusted by height and body weight. Sarcopenic obesity was considered present in Class II sarcopenic participants whose waist circumference was more than or equal to 90 cm for men and more than or equal to 85 cm for women, respectively. The prevalence of Class II sarcopenia in the Korean elderly population was 12.4% for men and 0.1% for women by height-adjusted definition and 9.7% for men and 11.8% for women by weight-adjusted definition. The prevalence of sarcopenic obesity was 7.6% for men and 9.1% for women by weight-adjusted definition but nearly zero for men and women by height-adjusted definition. The prevalence of sarcopenia increased with age for men but for women only when applied with weight-adjusted definition. The prevalence of sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity differs by gender and definition criteria. The height-adjusted definition may tend to underestimate the prevalence of sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity, especially in women.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据