Back to all available

Dose-response association between triglyceride-glucose index and sarcopenia: a meta-analysis

diabetes-and-endocrinology
nursing
public-health

Abstract

Background: With the acceleration of population aging, the incidence of sarcopenia has significantly increased in the elderly. The triglyceride-glucose index has been shown to correlate with sarcopenia; This study aims to investigate the association between the triglyceride-glucose index and sarcopenia.

Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was conducted for relevant studies published up to June 15, 2025. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model in STATA 15.0.

Results: Analysis of 14 studies (n=82,798) revealed a significant positive association between the TyG index and sarcopenia risk (OR=2.15, 95% CI: 1.60-2.89). A clear dose-response relationship was observed across TyG quartiles: Q2 (OR=1.38, 95% CI: 1.08-1.75), Q3 (OR=1.64, 95% CI: 1.21-2.20), and Q4 (OR=1.75, 95% CI: 1.21-2.55). The TyG-BMI index showed an even stronger association, with risk increasing markedly across quartiles (Q2: OR=2.51, 95% CI: 1.55-4.05; Q3: OR=5.01, 95% CI: 1.89-13.25; Q4: OR=9.08, 95% CI: 2.91-28.37). Subgroup analyses confirmed consistent positive associations in middle-aged adults (OR=1.87, 95% CI: 1.46-2.42) and individuals with comorbidities (OR=1.94, 95% CI: 1.54-2.44).

Conclusions: This meta-analysis confirms a significant association between the TyG index and sarcopenia. As the TyG index increases, the risk of developing sarcopenia also rises, demonstrating a clear dose-response relationship between the two. This highlights the potential utility of the TyG index as a key indicator for risk assessment and early intervention strategies.

Trial registration: CRD420251067364.June 25, 2025
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].