ReviewAging and disease2025
A Comprehensive Review of the Correlations of Measurement Parameters among Modern Technologies for Sarcopenia Assessment.
Review in Aging and disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interorgan Crosstalk in MASLD: A Narrative Review.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Circulating selectins as potential biomarkers for sarcopenia: a case-control study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sarcopenia is characterized by a degeneration of muscle mass and strength, which impairs mobility and causes fragility in older adults. Modern assessment technologies include magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), and ultrasound (US). Despite the tremendous efforts made in the past to investigate the correlations among measurement parameters of these technologies, inconsistencies in the reported correlations persist, and there is no existing review article considering all these technologies for sarcopenia assessment, resulting in a lack of a common understanding about the correlations of these techniques. Herein, we conduct a comprehensive review to scrutinize the reported correlations between each pair of these five technologies from 51 publications in the literature. We classified these five technologies into two categories: image-based methods (IBMs), including CT, MRI, and US, and non-image-based methods (NIBMs), including DXA and BIA, resulting in ten pairs of correlations analyzed. The averaged correlations for NIBM-NIBM (BIA-DXA: 0.909) and IBM-IBM (MRI-CT: 0.978; MRI-US: 0.861; CT-US: 0.875; overall: 0.905) were high, while those for NIBM-IBM exhibited lower correlations with wider variations (DXA-CT: 0.834; BIA-CT: 0.824; BIA-MRI: 0.715; DXA-MRI: 0.834; DXA-US: 0.497; and BIA-US: 0.463; overall: 0.695). Generally, the correlations within the same category were greater than those between different categories. The dissimilar measurement locations and components could apparently cause lower correlations (e.g., BIA-US and DXA-US); the lower averaged correlations do not necessarily represent their low clinical value for sarcopenia assessments. By contrast, integrating NIBM and IBM may leverage the strengths of each technology, complementing their metrics, and bring a more holistic connection to sarcopenia. We hope to facilitate an enhanced understanding of the reported correlations from the literature, offering the community insightful recommendations for selecting technologies toward further research.
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.