ArticleJournal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle2018
The authors reply: Letter on: "Pitfalls in the measurement of muscle mass: a need for a reference standard" by Clark et al.
Article in Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Analysis of body composition, functionality and muscle-specific strength of older women with obesity, sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Prevalence of Sarcopenia and Sarcopenic Obesity in an Academic Total Joint Arthroplasty Practice.Arthroplasty today · 2022Article
- A comparative analysis of body composition assessment by BIA and DXA in children with type II and III spinal muscular atrophy.Frontiers in neurology · 2022Article
- Association between anorexia of ageing and sarcopenia among Japanese older adults.Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle · 2020Article
- Changes in the bioelectrical impedance parameters estimating appendicular skeletal muscle mass in healthy older persons.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2020Article
- Musculoskeletal adaptations to strength training in frail elderly: a matter of quantity or quality?Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle · 2020Article
- Article
- Comparison of Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA) Versus a Multi-Frequency Bioelectrical Impedance (InBody 770) Device for Body Composition Assessment after a 4-Week Hypoenergetic Diet.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2019Article
- The authors reply: Letter on: "Pitfalls in the measurement of muscle mass: a need for a reference standard" by Clark et al.Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
- Comment on
Authors and funding
31 authors.
Funding
Abstract
However, semantics aside, we think that DXA can indeed serve as a reference standard for measuring muscle mass. Obviously, CT and MRI are advanced techniques that can and have been used to obtain important information such as muscle size/volume and more recently amount and distribution of intra- and intermuscular adipose tissue. Also individual muscles can be assessed separately. However, with respect to muscle mass, the comparison of DXA with CT/MRI is rather difficult because DXA and QCT/MRI measure different physical parameters.
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.