ReviewQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2026
Intra- and inter-rater reliability of skeletal muscle mass MRI assessment among adults: a systematic review.
Review in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Progressive and generalized loss of skeletal muscle mass (SMM) can lead to reduced physical performance, poor quality of life, increased mortality, fall-related fractures, cardiopulmonary ailments, cancers, cachexia, and sarcopenia. While computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are considered gold standards for non-invasive SMM assessment, MRI offers advantages such as superior tissue contrast and a lack of radiation exposure. This systematic review synthesizes evidence on the reliability of measuring SMM with MRI and addresses gaps related to differences in segmentation methods and reliability across body regions. Methods: This review evaluates the reliability of measuring regional and total body SMM with MRI among adults. The databases PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Embase were searched until September 2025. Studies assessing the intra- and inter-rater reliability of SMM using MRI in adults were included. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. Results: Forty studies were included, with mostly healthy participants and others with musculoskeletal conditions such as osteoarthritis, low back pain, and rotator cuff tears. All participants were aged 18 to 87 years. Overall, twenty studies demonstrated a low risk of bias, fourteen a moderate risk, and six an unclear risk, reflecting generally adequate methodological quality. The majority reported excellent intra- and inter-rater reliability [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) >0.9] of MRI in assessing SMM across various muscle groups, with no significant differences observed between them. Segmentation methods included manual, semi-automatic, and automatic scan analyses, each presenting distinct advantages and limitations. Twenty studies focused on the leg, sixteen on the trunk, neck and head region, one on the arm, and two on total body SMM. Conclusions: MRI shows mostly excellent reliability in assessing SMM. However, limited research on total body muscle mass and automatic segmentation methods highlights the need for further investigation. These approaches could improve efficiency and diagnostic precision in clinical practice.
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.