| Literature DB >> 35935249 |
Yichen Yang1,2, Qin Zhang1,2, Caihong He1,2, Jing Chen1,2, Danfeng Deng1,2, Wenwen Lu1,2, Yuming Wang1,2.
Abstract
Background: There were limited studies specifically evaluating whether the difference of the prevalence of sarcopenia exists in men and women in older adults from rural areas in China. The aim of this study was to compare the prevalence of sarcopenia between men and women in a rural area in eastern China and to explore the underlying causes.Entities:
Keywords: Eastern China; Rural; Sarcopenia; Women health
Year: 2022 PMID: 35935249 PMCID: PMC9354735 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.13678
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 3.061
Figure 1Application of AWGS 2019 algorithm for the case finding of sarcopenia.
Participants characteristics.
This table represents the baseline characteristic comparison of participants. The meaning of each data representation is reflected in the table.
| Men | Women |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years), mean (SD) | 72.4(0.31) | 70.94(0.30) | <0.001 |
| Education level, n (%) | <0.001 | ||
| Illiterate | 164(29.71) | 406(74.50) | |
| Primary | 306(55.43) | 125(22.94) | |
| Secondary and above | 82(14.86) | 14(2.57) | |
| Personal income per year (thousands CNY), median (IQR) | 25 (20–40) | 20 (10–25) | 0.001 |
| Number of diseases, n (%) | <0.001 | ||
| No | 147(26.39) | 126(22.99) | |
| 1 | 259(46.50) | 212(38.69) | |
| 2 | 101(18.13) | 135(24.64) | |
| More than 2 | 50(8.98) | 75(13.69) | |
| Smoking, n (%) | <0.001 | ||
| Never | 269(48.47) | 540(99.08) | |
| Current | 189(34.05) | 4(0.73) | |
| Ever | 97(17.48) | 1(0.18) | |
| Drinking, n (%) | <0.001 | ||
| Never | 203(36.51) | 442(80.95) | |
| Current | 292(52.52) | 93(17.03) | |
| Ever | 61(10.97) | 11(2.01) | |
| Physical exercise, n (%) | 0.622 | ||
| Seldom | 437(78.88) | 424(77.66) | |
| Often | 117(21.12) | 122(22.34) | |
| Meat, n (%) | <0.001 | ||
| No | 49(8.81) | 202(36.93) | |
| Occasionally | 193(34.71) | 205(37.48) | |
| Often | 269(48.38) | 124(22.67) | |
| Everyday | 45(8.09) | 16(2.93) | |
| Fish, n (%) | <0.001 | ||
| No | 34(6.12) | 187(34.25) | |
| Occasionally | 168(30.22) | 178(32.60) | |
| Often | 337(60.61) | 177(32.42) | |
| Everyday | 17(3.06) | 4(0.73) | |
| Eggs, n (%) | <0.001 | ||
| No | 65(11.69) | 223(40.77) | |
| Occasionally | 279(50.18) | 223(40.77) | |
| Often | 189(33.99) | 88(16.09) | |
| Everyday | 23(4.14) | 13(2.38) | |
| Milk, n (%) | 0.004 | ||
| No | 278(50.00) | 332(60.81) | |
| Occasionally | 154(27.70) | 114(20.88) | |
| Often | 81(14.57) | 69(12.64) | |
| Everyday | 43(7.73) | 31(5.68) | |
| Vegetables, n (%) | 0.154 | ||
| No | 4(0.72) | 3(0.55) | |
| Occasionally | 5(0.90) | 0(0.00) | |
| Often | 53(9.53) | 57(10.44) | |
| Everyday | 494(88.85) | 486(89.01) | |
| Fruits, n (%) | 0.343 | ||
| No | 56(10.09) | 50(9.17) | |
| Occasionally | 325(58.56) | 306(56.15) | |
| Often | 151(27.21) | 154(28.26) | |
| Everyday | 23(4.14) | 35(6.42) |
Notes.
standard deviation
Chinese Yuan
interquartile range
Sex Differences in Sarcopenia, LGS and LMM.
| Men ( | Women ( |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sarcopenia, n (%) | <0.001 | ||
| Yes | 72(12.93) | 119(21.72) | |
| No | 485(87.07) | 429(78.28) | |
| LGS, n (%) | 0.021 | ||
| Yes | 259(46.50) | 293(53.47) | |
| No | 298(53.50) | 255(46.53) | |
| LMM, n (%) | 0.041 | ||
| Yes | 121(21.72) | 148(27.01) | |
| No | 436(78.28) | 400(72.99) |
Notes.
low grip strength
low muscle mass
Associations between sex and sarcopenia, LGS and LMM.
This table represents the prevalence of sarcopenia, low muscle mass and low grip strength in men and women under different five models before and after adjustment for confounders. The significance represented by each data is represented in the table.
| Univariable model |
| Multivariable model 1 |
| Multivariable model 2 |
| Multivariable model 3 |
| Multivariable model 4 |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PR (95% CI) | PR (95% CI) | PR (95% CI) | PR (95% CI) | PR (95% CI) | ||||||
|
| ||||||||||
| Men | 1 (reference) | 1 (reference) | 1 (reference) | 1 (reference) | 1 (reference) | |||||
| Women | 1.68 (1.29–2.20) | <0.001 | 1.61(1.19–2.18) | 0.002 | 1.42 (1.04–1.93) | 0.026 | 1.58 (1.07–2.32) | 0.021 | 1.49 (1.01–2.26) | 0.055 |
|
| ||||||||||
| Men | 1 (reference) | 1 (reference) | 1 (reference) | 1 (reference) | 1 (reference) | |||||
| Women | 1.15 (1.02–1.29) | 0.021 | 1.03(0.91–1.17) | 0.626 | 0.95 (0.83–1.08) | 0.398 | 0.99 (0.95–1.16) | 0.921 | 0.96 (0.81–1.14) | 0.641 |
|
| ||||||||||
| Men | 1 (reference) | 1 (reference) | 1 (reference) | 1 (reference) | 1 (reference) | |||||
| Women | 1.24 (1.01–1.53) | 0.041 | 1.31(1.03–1.66) | 0.028 | 1.19 (0.93–1.52) | 0.172 | 1.09 (0.81–1.47) | 0.586 | 1.14 (0.83–1.55) | 0.422 |
Notes.
prevalence ratio
confidence interval
low grip strength
low muscle mass
Multivariable Model 1: adjusted for age, education level and number of diseases. Multivariable Model 2: adjusted for age, education level and number of diseases and income level. Multivariable Model 3: adjusted for age, education level, number of diseases, income level, smoking status, drinking alcohol, and physical exercise. Multivariable Model 4: adjusted for age, education level, number of diseases, income level, smoking status, drinking alcohol and eating habits of fish, milk, egg and meat.