ArticleOral radiology2023
Accurate estimation of skeletal muscle mass by comparison of computed tomographic images of the third lumbar and third cervical vertebrae in Japanese patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma.
Article in Oral radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- From neck to abdomen: cervical (C3) muscle quantification as a surrogate to lumbar (L3) sarcopenia assessment in head and neck cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis.Skeletal radiology · 2026Pooled it
- Review
- Association between lateral pterygoid muscle index as a predictor for sarcopenia and overall survival in non-small cell lung cancer patients with brain metastasis.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2025Article
- Comparison between single-muscle evaluation and cross-sectional area muscle evaluation for predicting the prognosis in patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe evaluated the accuracy of estimating the cross-sectional area (CSA) at the third lumbar vertebra (L3) based on the CSA at the third cervical vertebra (C3) using computed tomographic images, and we identified the sources of error and bias using the evaluation of absolute reliability in 89 Japanese patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma.
methodsSkeletal muscle CSA was measured at the C3 and L3 on pretreatment computed tomographic images. We used the CSA at the C3 to estimate CSA at the L3 in an existing prediction formula. Correlation coefficients were used to evaluate the relative reliability of the estimate, and Bland-Altman analysis and minimum detectable change (MDC) were used to evaluate its absolute reliability.
resultsEstimated and actual CSAs at L3 were strongly correlated (r = 0.885, p < 0.001). The mean difference between the estimated and actual CSAs was - 1.0887 cm
conclusionsThe estimation of CSA at the L3 from the existing prediction formula with the CSA at the C3 had no systematic biases, but it did have random errors. Random errors resulted from measurement errors and biological variation. Usefulness of the existing formula is limited by physical differences in populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36114388What 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.