Study record
MOTS-c Levels and Sarcopenia Risk in Chronic Peritoneal Dialysis Patients: A Pilot Study
Zicarelli M, Greco M, Roumeliotis S et al. · Medicina (Kaunas) · 2025
Human obs.Endogenous MOTS-c measuredEvidence tier B
What this study reported
Measured lower serum MOTS-c and higher dialysate MOTS-c in peritoneal dialysis patients at very high sarcopenia risk, and reported that serum MOTS-c correlated positively, and dialysate MOTS-c negatively, with muscle performance in physical tests.
Limitations
Pilot study of 32 patients with no control group and cross-sectional sampling; sarcopenia risk was screened by questionnaire rather than confirmed diagnostically, and multiple correlations were tested.
Study record
| Study model | Human observational |
|---|---|
| Substance studied | Endogenous MOTS-c measuredNaturally occurring MOTS-c was measured; nothing was given. |
| Species | human |
| System studied | Serum, urine and dialysate MOTS-c in chronic peritoneal dialysis patients screened for sarcopenia risk |
| Population | adults on chronic peritoneal dialysis |
| Design | Cross-sectional pilot study |
| Sample size as reported | 32 chronic peritoneal dialysis patients |
| Control group | Not reported |
| Route (data field only) | Not reported |
| Endpoints measured | serum MOTS-c; dialysate MOTS-c; dialysate-to-serum MOTS-c ratio; SARC-F score; physical performance and anthropometric measures |
| Pathways measured | Not reported |
| Research areas | Kidney · Skeletal muscle · Aging |
| Evidence tier | B — Other human study |
| Publication types | Journal Article |
Appraisal
Each dimension is recorded separately and never combined into a single score. A study can be well controlled and still tell you little about people.
- Relevance to MOTS-c
- Direct
- Model applicability
- Human
- Sample size
- Small
- Controls
- None
- Outcome validity
- Surrogate
- Support for its own conclusion
- Weak
Provenance
- Bibliographic fields retrieved from PubMed E-utilities efetch (title, journal, date, authors, DOI) on 2026-11-11.
- Annotated from the published abstract.
- Editorial review: approved (2026-11-11).
- Classification follows the site methodology; the record describes the study, not what MOTS-c does in people.