Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31834509›Full record

ReviewEuropean radiology2020

Imaging of sarcopenia: old evidence and new insights.

Domenico Albano, Carmelo Messina, Jacopo Vitale, Luca Maria Sconfienza

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 233 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
233citing papers in PubMed, 13 pooled it
17.1field-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

233 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 375 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Clinical impact of CT-defined sarcopenia on long-term oncological outcomes in gastric cancer: validation of muscle mass cut-offs established according to EWGSOP recommendations.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2026
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

173 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Domenico AlbanoIRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Via Riccardo Galeazzi 4, 20161, Milan, Italy.
Carmelo MessinaIRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Via Riccardo Galeazzi 4, 20161, Milan, Italy.
Jacopo VitaleIRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Via Riccardo Galeazzi 4, 20161, Milan, Italy.
Luca Maria SconfienzaIRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Via Riccardo Galeazzi 4, 20161, Milan, Italy. io@lucasconfienza.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0759-8431
Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi · ITUniversity of Milan · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To date, sarcopenia is considered a patient-specific imaging biomarker able to predict clinical outcomes. Several imaging modalities, including dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance (MR), and ultrasound (US), can be used to assess muscle mass and quality and to achieve the diagnosis of sarcopenia. With different extent, all these modalities can provide quantitative data, being thus reproducible and comparable over time. DXA is the one most commonly used in clinical practice, with the advantages of being accurate and widely available, and also being the only radiological tool with accepted cutoff values to diagnose sarcopenia. CT and MR are considered the reference standards, allowing the evaluation of muscle quality and fatty infiltration, but their application is so far mostly limited to research. US has been always regarded as a minor tool in sarcopenia and has never gained enough space. To date, CT is probably the easiest and most promising modality, although limited by the long time needed for muscle segmentation. Also, the absence of validated thresholds for CT measurements of myosteatosis requires that future studies should focus on this point. Radiologists have the great potential of becoming pivotal in the context of sarcopenia. We highly master imaging modalities and know perfectly how to apply them to different organs and clinical scenarios. Similarly, radiologists should master the culture of sarcopenia, and its clinical aspects and relevant implications for patient care. The medical and scientific radiological community should promote specific educational course to spread awareness among professionals. KEY POINTS: • DXA is an accurate, reproducible, and widely available imaging modality to evaluate body composition, being the most commonly used radiological tool to diagnose sarcopenia in clinical practice • CT and MR are the gold standard imaging modalities to assess muscle mass and quality, but no clear cutoff values have been reported to identify sarcopenia, limiting the application of these modalities to research purposes • US has shown to be accurate in the evaluation of muscle trophism, especially in the thigh, but its current application in sarcopenia is limited.

Indexed as

Absorptiometry, PhotonAdipose TissueBody CompositionDiffusion Tensor ImagingHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMuscle, SkeletalSarcopeniaThighTomography, X-Ray ComputedUltrasonographyDual-energy X-ray absorptiometryMagnetic resonance imagingMultidetector computed tomographySarcopeniaUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID31834509
OpenAlexW2995536476

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.