4.7 Review

Are Sarcopenia and Cognitive Dysfunction Comorbid after Stroke in the Context of Brain-Muscle Crosstalk?

期刊

BIOMEDICINES
卷 9, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines9020223

关键词

stroke; post stroke; sarcopenia; cognitive dysfunction

资金

  1. Deakin Postgraduate Scholarship
  2. Geelong Medical and Hospital Benefits Association (GMHBA)
  3. Executive Dean Health Research Fellowship (Deakin University)
  4. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (NHMRC) [1125054]
  5. NHMRC
  6. Barwon Health
  7. Deakin University
  8. Amgen
  9. BUPA Foundation
  10. Osteoporosis Australia
  11. Australian and New Zealand Bone and Mineral Society
  12. Geelong Community Foundation
  13. Western Alliance
  14. Norman Beischer Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Stroke is a common cause of death and disability, often leading to sarcopenia and cognitive dysfunction as common consequences. There is a lack of awareness and guidance for clinicians and researchers on how to address sarcopenia and cognitive dysfunction as comorbidities after stroke. This review synthesises current knowledge on the relationship between post-stroke sarcopenia and cognitive dysfunction, including physiological pathways, assessment tools, and interventions.
Stroke is a leading cause of death and disability and is responsible for a significant economic burden. Sarcopenia and cognitive dysfunction are common consequences of stroke, but there is less awareness of the concurrency of these conditions. In addition, few reviews are available to guide clinicians and researchers on how to approach sarcopenia and cognitive dysfunction as comorbidities after stroke, including how to assess and manage them and implement interventions to improve health outcomes. This review synthesises current knowledge about the relationship between post-stroke sarcopenia and cognitive dysfunction, including the physiological pathways, assessment tools, and interventions involved.

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