Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39224178›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2024

Assessing skeletal muscle mass and lean body mass: an analysis of the agreement among dual X-ray absorptiometry, anthropometry, and bioelectrical impedance.

Nicolás Baglietto, Raquel Vaquero-Cristóbal, Mario Albaladejo-Saura, Malek Mecherques-Carini, Francisco Esparza-Ros

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 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. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Parenteral Nutrition in Eating Disorders: A Systematic Scoping Review.European eating disorders review : the journal of the Eating Disorders Association · 2026
    Article
  5. Indexing for body surface area when assessing kidney function.Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation : official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association · 2026
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  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

5 authors.

Nicolás BagliettoInternational Kinanthropometry Chair, UCAM Universidad Católica San Antonio de Murcia, Murcia, Spain.
Raquel Vaquero-CristóbalResearch Group Movement Sciences and Sport (MS&SPORT), Department of Physical Activity and Sport Sciences, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Murcia, San Javier, Spain.
Mario Albaladejo-SauraInternational Kinanthropometry Chair, UCAM Universidad Católica San Antonio de Murcia, Murcia, Spain.
Malek Mecherques-CariniInternational Kinanthropometry Chair, UCAM Universidad Católica San Antonio de Murcia, Murcia, Spain.
Francisco Esparza-RosInternational Kinanthropometry Chair, UCAM Universidad Católica San Antonio de Murcia, Murcia, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Methods of body composition estimation such as dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), anthropometry, and bioimpedance (BIA) are used for the estimation of skeletal muscle mass (SMM) and lean body mass (LBM). No previous studies have examined whether these methods generate comparable results, or whether they are valid by using DXA as the reference. The aims of the present investigation were: (a) to assess the differences between DXA, anthropometry, and BIA in the estimation of SMM and LBM, taking into consideration the impact of sex and hydration status; and (b) to examine the agreement of anthropometry and BIA as compared to DXA for the estimation of SMM and LBM. Methods: A descriptive cross-sectional design was followed with 262 healthy young adults (159 males and 103 females). LBM and SMM were assessed by anthropometry with the formulas from Lee et al. and Kulkarni et al. for LBM; and Kerr (opt a), Kerr (opt b), Lee et al., Poortmans, Matiegka, Martin et al., Drinkwater and Ross, and Heymsfield et al. for SMM; by BIA with the formula reported by the TANITA MC-780-MA software for LBM and SMM; and DXA with the formula reported by the Hologic Horizon software for LBM, and the conversion by Kim et al. for SMM. Results: Significant differences were found for both SMM and LBM in kg, and percentages between most methods and formulas for the overall sample ( Conclusion: There is a lack of agreement between methods and formulas for assessing SMM and LBM. Sex was found to be a significant factor in this analysis. Furthermore, significant differences were observed between most formulas and methods as compared to DXA, except for the equations to estimate SMM with anthropometry by Poortmans.

Indexed as

anthropometrybioimpedancebody compositionDXAlean body massskeletal muscle mass

Identifiers

PMID39224178
PMCPMC11366593

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.