You are here

  • Home
  • Online First
  • Sarcopenia definitions: where to draw the line? Response to Scarlata et al

Article Text

Article menu

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Correspondence
Sarcopenia definitions: where to draw the line? Response to Scarlata et al
  1. Matthew Maddocks1,
  2. Sarah E Jones2,
  3. Samantha S C Kon2,
  4. Jane L Canavan2,
  5. Claire M Nolan2,3,
  6. Amy L Clark3,
  7. Michael I Polkey2,
  8. William D-C Man2,3
  1. 1King's College London, Cicely Saunders Institute, London, UK
  2. 2NIHR Respiratory Biomedical Research Unit, Royal Brompton & Harefield NHS, Foundation Trust and Imperial College, London, UK
  3. 3Harefield Pulmonary Rehabilitation Unit, Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Matthew Maddocks, King's College London, Cicely Saunders Institute, London SE5 9PJ, UK; matthew.maddocks{at}kcl.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2015-207041

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    We thank Scarlata et al1 for their interest in our study2 in which we demonstrated a 15% prevalence in stable COPD by European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP) criteria.3 Professor Scarlata and colleagues acknowledge these are the most commonly adopted sarcopenia criteria. Consequently, prevalence estimates in other populations4 allow us to compare our findings beyond respiratory medicine. Towards the end of recruitment, The Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (FNIH) Sarcopenia Project published their findings.5 We acknowledge the strength of the FNIH criteria, with cut points derived from a large pool of patient-level data.5 Nonetheless, the project …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Competing interests None.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.