BackgroundFibroblast growth factor 21 (FGF-21) plays an important role in the growth and metabolism of skeletal muscle cells. This study aims to systemically review the evidence regarding the relationship between FGF-21 levels and Sarcopenia, as well as the related influential factors.MethodsThis review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. We comprehensively searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Web of Science, Scopus, and Chinese Databases (CNKI, Wan Fang, VIP, and CBM) up to 1 May 2023. 3 investigators performed independent literature screening and data extraction of the included literature, and two investigators performed an independent quality assessment of case-control studies using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) tool. Data analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4 software. For continuous various outcomes, mean difference (MD) or standard mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was applied for assessment by fixed-effect or random-effect model analysis. The heterogeneity test was performed by the Q-statistic and quantified using I2, and publication bias was evaluated using a funnel plot.ResultsFive studies with a total of 625 cases were included in the review. Meta-analysis showed lower BMI in the sarcopenia group [MD= -2.88 (95% CI, -3. 49, -2.27);P< 0.00001; I2= 0%], significantly reduced grip strength in the sarcopenia group compared to the non-sarcopenia group [MD = -7.32(95% CI, -10.42,-4.23);P< 0.00001; I2= 93%]. No statistically significant differences in serum FGF21 levels were found when comparing the two groups of subjects [SMD = 0.31(95% CI, -0.42, 1.04);P= 0.41; I2= 94%], and no strong correlation was found between the onset of sarcopenia and serum FGF21 levels.ConclusionThe diagnosis of sarcopenia is followed by a more significant decrease in muscle mass and strength, but there is a lack of strong evidence to support a direct relationship between elevated organismal FGF21 and sarcopenia, and it is not convincing to use FGF21 as a biological or diagnostic marker for sarcopenia. The currently used diagnostic criteria for sarcopenia and setting of cut-off values for each evaluation parameter no longer seem to match clinical practice.