ArticleSystematic reviews2026
Methodologies for establishing and validating cut-points and comparative standards in medical imaging-based body composition analysis: a scoping review protocol.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMedical imaging-based body composition analysis (BCA) has shown promise in offering detailed, noninvasive assessments of fat, muscle, and bone, but challenges persist in establishing consistent comparative standards. Current studies reveal significant variability in methodologies, which limits comparability and clinical application. This highlights the need for a comprehensive review to explore these methodologies and address the gap in standardisation. The aim of the study is to identify and map the methodologies used in body composition imaging to establish and validate comparative standards (such as cut-points, thresholds, or normative values) and to catalogue the proposed comparative standards.
methodsThis scoping review will be conducted following JBI methodology. The following eligibility criteria will be applied: Population: healthy subjects with no major comorbidities or individuals with cancer assessed using body composition imaging (BCI) and concept: methodologies for establishing BCI comparative standards and/or formally validating them against any outcome or other BCA reference standard. This scoping review will consider studies across all clinical settings. There will be no restrictions on the setting or purpose of the original study. Validation studies using BCI as the reference standard will not be included unless the comparative standard being validated is another BCI feature. The electronic databases to be searched are Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Scopus, EBSCOhost CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and IEEE Xplore. Grey literature sources will not be included. Studies published in English will be considered, with no date restrictions applied. Two independent reviewers will screen all titles and abstracts, followed by full-text articles, and will undertake data extraction. Data extracted will be presented in tabular and/or diagrammatic form for comprehensive narrative synthesis. DISCUSSION: The scoping review will summarise existing evidence on BCI. It will identify potential methodological gaps, describe current proposed thresholds or normative values, and highlight areas for further research to establish validated cut-points. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: OSF https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/QZMN2 .
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.