ArticleJournal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle2025
Concordance of Freehand 3D Ultrasound Muscle Measurements With Sarcopenia Parameters in a Geriatric Rehabilitation Ward.
Article in Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Digital Technologies and Biomarkers for Locomotor Capacity Assessment in Older Adults: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Muscle Imaging Assessments in Sarcopenia: A Statement from China National Center for Orthopedics (NCO) and the East Meets West Action Group of the European Calcified Tissue Society (ECTS).Calcified tissue international · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSarcopenia is a devastating disease for older adults, but it lacks accessible and reliable tools for measuring total appendicular skeletal muscle mass (ASMM). Two-dimensional muscle ultrasound (US) has been developed for its bedside clinical advantages and feasibility but lacks standardization and prediction performance. We previously validated a new 3D-US technique to measure muscle volume (MV) at bedside and applied it in a geriatric rehabilitation setting. Objectives were to analyse the concordance between 3D-US MV and ASMM and compare concordance between 3D-US MV and 2D-US parameters with ASMM.
methodsParticipants were recruited in a Geriatric rehabilitation ward in Nantes, France, from May to October 2022. Exclusion criteria were as follows: oedema in the lower limbs or recent history of unilateral lower limb damage or stroke. ASMM was measured with bioelectrical impedance analysis; 3D-US and 2D-US acquisitions were performed on three muscles of the right lower limb. Measures of strength (hand grip, knee extension and ankle dorsiflexion) were also recorded. Reliability of 3D-US MV measurements on 10 participants was high (ICC = 0.99). We used Lin's concordance correlation coefficients (CCC) and bias correction factor for agreement between variables and linear regression models for prediction equations.
resultsFifty-eight participants had an interpretable ASMM of whom 17 (29%) had a diagnosis of sarcopenia. Volumes of TA, RF and VL were all significantly concordant with ASMM measured by BIA (all p values < 0.001), with CCCs respectively of 0.72, 0.61 and 0.60. MV were all significantly concordant with isometric strength (p values < 0.001). Concordance and correlation with ASMM were higher with 3D-US than 2D-US measurements regardless of the muscle. Prediction of ASMM reached an adjusted R
conclusionsThis study was the first to use 3D-US in a geriatric setting and develop a model to predict ASMM in very old hospitalized patients. MV measurements with 3D-US proved to be reliable and more concordant with appendicular muscle mass and strength than 2D parameters.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.