ReviewEuropean geriatric medicine2026
"Muscle quality": rethinking an imprecise term.
Review in European geriatric medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Future of CT body composition research: Methodological discrepancies and advances.Nutrition in clinical practice : official publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition · 2026Review
- Relationship Between Age and Grip Strength, Phase Angle, and Impedance Rate Measured by Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis in Japanese Individuals Aged 15-18 Years.Physiological research · 2026Article
- Rethinking sarcopenia: a conceptual shift towards a muscle health continuum.European geriatric medicine · 2026Review
- Methodological standards for body composition assessment-an expert-endorsed guide for research and clinical applications: bioimpedance, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, computerized tomography, and ultrasound methods.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2026Review
- Editorial: Advancing muscle health: from technical and clinical research to practice.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The term "muscle quality" is widely used in both research and clinical settings, yet a universally accepted definition currently does not exist. Studies addressing "muscle quality" encompass a broad range of functional and morphological characteristics of skeletal muscle, leading to inconsistent interpretations. Aligning with global efforts to adopt standardized and precise terminology, this paper aims to clarify the most frequently assessed parameters under the umbrella of "muscle quality", describe the accurate definitions, and emphasize their clinical significance. Establishing a future unified framework and terminology will be essential for advancing research, ensuring comparability across studies, and reinforcing the clinical applicability of muscle health assessments. Until then, muscle composition, muscle architecture, and muscle-specific strength may serve as appropriate terms to describe the morphological and functional aspects, respectively.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41351652What 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.