Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24532493›Full record

ArticleJournal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle2014

Assessing skeletal muscle mass: historical overview and state of the art.

Steven B Heymsfield, Michael Adamek, M Cristina Gonzalez, Guang Jia, Diana M Thomas

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 98 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
98citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

98 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 210 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

38 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Steven B HeymsfieldPennington Biomedical Research Center, Louisiana State University, 6400 Perkins Rd, Baton Rouge, LA, 70808, USA, Steven.Heymsfield@pbrc.edu.
Michael Adamek
M Cristina Gonzalez
Guang Jia
Diana M Thomas
Louisiana State University · USMontclair State University · USPennington Biomedical Research Center · USUniversidade Católica de Pelotas · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEven though skeletal muscle (SM) is the largest body compartment in most adults and a key phenotypic marker of sarcopenia and cachexia, SM mass was until recently difficult and often impractical to quantify in vivo. This review traces the historical development of SM mass measurement methods and their evolution to advances that now promise to provide in-depth noninvasive measures of SM composition.

methodsKey steps in the advancement of SM measurement methods and their application were obtained from historical records and widely cited publications over the past two centuries. Recent advances were established by collecting information on notable studies presented at scientific meetings and their related publications.

resultsThe year 1835 marks the discovery of creatine in meat by Chevreul, a finding that still resonates today in the D3-creatine method of measuring SM mass. Matiegka introduced an anthropometric approach for estimating SM mass in 1921 with the vision of creating a human "capacity" marker. The 1940s saw technological advances eventually leading up to the development of ultrasound and bioimpedance analysis methods of quantifying SM mass in vivo. Continuing to seek an elusive SM mass "reference" method, Burkinshaw and Cohn introduced the whole-body counting-neutron activation analysis method and provided some of the first detailed reports of cancer cachexia in the late 1970s. Three transformative breakthroughs leading to the current SM mass reference methods appeared in the 1970s and early 1980s as follows: the introduction of computed tomography (CT), photon absorptiometry, and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. Each is advanced as an accurate and/or practical approach to quantifying whole-body and regional SM mass across the lifespan. These advances have led to a new understanding of fundamental body size-SM mass relationships that are now widely applied in the evaluation and monitoring of patients with sarcopenia and cachexia. An intermediate link between SM mass and function is SM composition. Advances in water-fat MR imaging, diffusion tensor imaging, MR elastography, imaging of connective tissue structures by ultra-short echo time MR, and other new MR approaches promise to close the gap that now exists between SM anatomy and function.

conclusionsThe global efforts of scientists over the past two centuries provides us with highly accurate means by which to measure SM mass across the lifespan with new advances promising to extend these efforts to noninvasive methods for quantifying SM composition.

Identifiers

PMID24532493
PMCPMC3953319
OpenAlexW2109789037

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.