ReviewDer Anaesthesist2016
[Above and beyond BMI : Alternative methods of measuring body fat and muscle mass in critically ill patients and their clinical significance].
Review in Der Anaesthesist, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- WHtR-BFP dual-dimensional synergy: innovative construction of a nine-grid model for precision obesity management.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Body Composition Evaluation and Clinical Markers of Cardiometabolic Risk in Patients with Phenylketonuria.Nutrients · 2023Review
- The obesity paradox for survivors of critically ill patients.Critical care (London, England) · 2022Article
- Sarcopenia in Children With End-Stage Liver Disease on the Transplant Waiting List.Liver transplantation : official publication of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the International Liver Transplantation Society · 2021Article
- Paediatric reference values for total psoas muscle area.Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle · 2020Article
- [The dark side of obesity].Der Anaesthesist · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Obesity leads to better survival in critically ill patients. Although there are several studies confirming this thesis, the "obesity paradox" is still surprising from the clinician's perspective. One explanation for the "obesity paradox" is the fact that the body mass index (BMI), which is used in almost all clinical evaluations to determine weight categories, is not an appropriate measure of fat and skeletal muscle mass and its distribution in critically ill patients. In addition, height and weight are frequently estimated rather than measured. Central obesity has been identified in many disorders as an independent risk factor for an unfavourable outcome. The first clues are to be found in intensive care. Along with obesity, an individual's entire muscle mass is a variable that has an influence on outcome. Central obesity can be measured relatively easily with an abdominal calliper, but the calculation of muscle mass is more complex. A valid and detailed measurement of this can be obtained using computed tomography (CT) images, acquired during routine care. For future clinical observation or interventional studies, single cross-sectional CT is a more sophisticated tool for measuring patients' anthropometry than a measuring tape and callipers. Patients with sarcopenic obesity, for example, who may be at a particular risk, can only be identified using imaging procedures such as single cross-sectional CT. Thus, BMI should take a back seat as an anthropometric tool, both in the clinic and in research.
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.