ArticleThe Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association2022
The utility of bioelectrical impedance analysis in the diagnosis of sarcopenia: a systematic review.
Article in The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Can simple measures from clinical practice serve as a proxy for sarcopenic obesity and identify mortality risk?Aging clinical and experimental research · 2024Article
- Multidimensional Assessment of Sarcopenia and Sarcopenic Obesity in Geriatric Patients: Creatinine/Cystatin C Ratio Performs Better than Sarcopenia Index.Metabolites · 2024Article
- Evaluation of Multi-Frequency Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis against Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry for Estimation of Low Muscle Mass in Older Hospitalized Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Editorial: Body composition assessment techniques in clinical and epidemiological settings: Development, validation and use in dietary programs, physical training and sports.Frontiers in nutrition · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Context: Sarcopenia is a prevalent syndrome that has seen increased awareness in the last twenty years. Objective: To systematically assess and evaluate the utility of bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) in the diagnosis of sarcopenia in adults over the age of 60. Methods: An electronic search strategy of databases was conducted, including Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and SportDiscus. Included articles were evaluated using The Quality Appraisal for Reliability Studies (QAREL) checklist. Results: Seven articles (1336 participants) met the inclusion criteria of evaluating the diagnostic ability of BIA. Results indicate that that there is a high degree of heterogeneity in how BIA is used to diagnose sarcopenia. While BIA is an affordable and easy to use measurement tool, it does not consistently demonstrate high levels of diagnostic sensitivity. Conclusion: The current evidence does not consistently support the utility of BIA as an accurate diagnostic tool for sarcopenia in adults over 60. If utilizing BIA, clinicians should select a validated BIA equation for their patient's demographics. Clinicians should also consider the use of functional tests and validated screening questionnaires.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36275078PMC9512302W4307233892What 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.