Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36065509›Full record

ArticleJournal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle2022

The effect of computed tomography parameters on sarcopenia and myosteatosis assessment: a scoping review.

Jevin Lortie, Grace Gage, Benjamin Rush, Steven B Heymsfield, Timothy P Szczykutowicz, Adam J Kuchnia

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Future of CT body composition research: Methodological discrepancies and advances.Nutrition in clinical practice : official publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

6 authors.

Jevin LortieDepartment of Nutritional Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9647-2579
Grace GageDepartment of Nutritional Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.
Benjamin RushDepartment of Nutritional Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9530-1927
Steven B HeymsfieldPennington Biomedical Research Center, Louisiana State University System, Baton Rouge, LA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1127-9425
Timothy P SzczykutowiczDepartment of Radiology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3008-6568
Adam J KuchniaDepartment of Nutritional Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3418-0965

Funding

Institutional Career Development CoreKL2TR002374 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI Bo Liu, Marin Leigh Schweizer · 2017 to 2026
$9.7M
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR002374NCATS NIH HHS KL2TR002374
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Computed tomography (CT) is a valuable assessment method for muscle pathologies such as sarcopenia, cachexia, and myosteatosis. However, several key underappreciated scan imaging parameters need consideration for both research and clinical use, specifically CT kilovoltage and the use of contrast material. We conducted a scoping review to assess these effects on CT muscle measures. We reviewed articles from PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science from 1970 to 2020 on the effect of intravenous contrast material and variation in CT kilovoltage on muscle mass and density. We identified 971 articles on contrast and 277 articles on kilovoltage. The number of articles that met inclusion criteria for contrast and kilovoltage was 11 and 7, respectively. Ten studies evaluated the effect of contrast on muscle density of which nine found that contrast significantly increases CT muscle density (arterial phase 6-23% increase, venous phase 19-57% increase, and delayed phase 23-43% increase). Seven out of 10 studies evaluating the effect of contrast on muscle area found significant increases in area due to contrast (≤2.58%). Six studies evaluating kilovoltage on muscle density found that lower kilovoltage resulted in a higher muscle density (14-40% increase). One study reported a significant decrease in muscle area when reducing kilovoltage (2.9%). The use of contrast and kilovoltage variations can have dramatic effects on skeletal muscle analysis and should be considered and reported in CT muscle analysis research. These significant factors in CT skeletal muscle analysis can alter clinical and research outcomes and are therefore a barrier to clinical application unless better appreciated.

Indexed as

Contrast MediaSarcopeniaCachexiaHumansMuscle, SkeletalTomography, X-Ray ComputedContrast MediaContrast enhancementKilovoltageMuscle densityMuscle massSkeletal muscle analysis

Identifiers

PMID36065509
PMCPMC9745495

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.