“…For sarcopenia assessment methods, five studies (26,30,33,42,47) (32,50) and BIA (48,51), which were used by two studies each and yielded a pooled prevalence of 26.7 (95% CI: 23.2 to 30.5%, k = 2, I 2 = 98.90%, p = 0.000) and 0.4% (95% CI: 0.1 to 0.8%, k = 2, I 2 = 97.70%, p = 0.000), respectively. For parameters used to measure sarcopenia, seven studies used skeletal muscle index (SMI) with a pooled prevalence of 49.0% (95% CI: 31.3 to 66.9%, k = 7, I 2 = 97.03%, p = 0.000) (25,29,33,42,47,52,53), 4 studies used SARF-score with a prevalence of 73% (95% CI: 49.3 to 91.3%, k = 4, I 2 = 98.00%, p = 0.000) (31,41,44,45), and two studies used HGS with a prevalence of 26.7% (95% CI: 23.2 to 30.5%, k = 2, I 2 = 98.90%, p = 0.000) (32,50). The subgroup meta-analysis result of parameters used in the remaining studies is shown in Table 3 and Supplementary Figure 6.…”