ArticleEuropean journal of clinical nutrition2009
Muscle mass and bone mineral indices: does the normalized bone mineral content differ with age?
Article in European journal of clinical nutrition, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring the Link between Serum Phosphate Levels and Low Muscle Strength, Dynapenia, and Sarcopenia.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Aging and the muscle-bone relationship.Physiology (Bethesda, Md.) · 2015Review
- Nutritional status and its relationship with bone mass density in postmenopausal women admitted in osteodensitometry center, Isfahan-Iran.Journal of education and health promotion · 2014Article
- A cross-sectional study of sarcopenia in Japanese men and women: reference values and association with cardiovascular risk factors.European journal of applied physiology · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the relationships between regional skeletal muscle mass (SM mass) and bone mineral indices and to examine whether bone mineral content (BMC) normalized to SM mass shows a similar decrease with age in young through old age. SUBJECTS/
methodsOne hundred and thirty-eight young and postmenopausal women aged 20-76 years participated in this study and were divided into three groups: 61 young women, 49 middle-aged postmenopausal women and 28 older postmenopausal women. Muscle thickness (MTH) was determined by ultrasound, and regional SM mass (arm, trunk and leg) was estimated based on nine sites of MTH. Whole-body and regional lean soft tissue mass (LSTM), bone mineral density (BMD) and BMC (whole body, arms, legs and lumbar spine) were measured using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry.
resultsUltrasound spectroscopy indicated that SM mass is significantly correlated with site-matched regional bone mineral indices and these relationships correspond to LSTM. The BMC and BMD in older women were significantly lower than those in middle-aged women. When BMC was normalized to site-matched regional SM mass, BMC normalized to SM mass in arm and trunk region were significantly different with age; however, whole-body and leg BMC normalized to SM mass showed no significant difference between middle-aged and older postmenopausal women.
conclusionsThe age-related differences in BMC were found to be independent of the ageing of SM mass in the arm and trunk region. However, differences in BMC measures of the leg and whole body were found to correspond to age-related decline of SM mass in postmenopausal women.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.