Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38545058›Full record

ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2024

The agreement of different techniques for muscle measurement in diagnosing sarcopenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Linghong Li, Zhilin Xia, Xueqing Zeng, Anfen Tang, Ling Wang, Yi Su

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. 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.

Linghong Li *Key Laboratory of Molecular Epidemiology of Hunan Province, School of Medicine, Hunan Normal University, Changsha, China.
Zhilin Xia *Key Laboratory of Molecular Epidemiology of Hunan Province, School of Medicine, Hunan Normal University, Changsha, China.
Xueqing ZengKey Laboratory of Molecular Epidemiology of Hunan Province, School of Medicine, Hunan Normal University, Changsha, China.
Anfen TangKey Laboratory of Molecular Epidemiology of Hunan Province, School of Medicine, Hunan Normal University, Changsha, China.
Ling WangDepartment of Radiology, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, National Center for Orthopedics, Beijing, China.
Yi SuKey Laboratory of Molecular Epidemiology of Hunan Province, School of Medicine, Hunan Normal University, Changsha, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9107-3082

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The measurement or estimation of muscle mass plays an important role in the diagnosis of sarcopenia. Beside dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), several modalities, including bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), ultrasound (US), computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), have helped to provide imaging or electrical biomarkers for muscle mass. This study was aimed at summarizing the diagnostic performance of different techniques on muscle assessment for sarcopenia. Methods: Studies on the assessment of muscle mass by different techniques (compared with DXA), published from inception to 12 October, 2023 were retrieved from 4 electronic databases: the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science. The quality assessment of included studies was conducted using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2). The sensitivity, specificity, Cohen's kappa coefficient (κ), and Pearson correlation coefficient (r) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled and presented via forest plots. The area under the curve (AUC) with 95% CI was pooled and presented via summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curve. Results: A total of 28 studies involving 4,926 participants were included. Compared with DXA, the pooled sensitivity and specificity, AUC, and Cohen's κ were 0.79 (95% CI: 0.71-0.86, P<0.001), 0.95 (95% CI: 0.82-0.99, P<0.001), and 0.88 (95% CI: 0.85-0.90), and 0.61 (95% CI: 0.51-0.72) for BIA. The pooled r value between DXA and BIA or US or MRI was 0.94 (95% CI: 0.92-0.96, P<0.001), 0.69 (95% CI: 0.54-0.80, P<0.001), and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.95-0.97, P=0.21), respectively. No qualified original study in relation to CT was included. Conclusions: BIA, US, and MRI would provide acceptable diagnostic accuracy for sarcopenia by evaluating muscle mass in terms of sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and their higher correlations with DXA. Further investigation is required to elucidate the value of CT in diagnosing sarcopenia.

Indexed as

imagingmeta-analysismuscle massSarcopeniasystematic review

Identifiers

PMID38545058
PMCPMC10963824

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.