Advanced search
1 file | 217.68 KB
Author
Organization
Abstract
Background: All proposed definitions of sarcopenia include the measurement of muscle mass, but the techniques and threshold values used vary. Indeed, the literature does not establish consensus on the best technique for measuring lean body mass. Thus, the objective measurement of sarcopenia is hampered by limitations intrinsic to assessment tools. The aim of this study was to review the methods to assess muscle mass and to reach consensus on the development of a reference standard. Methods: Literature reviews were performed by members of the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis working group on frailty and sarcopenia. Face-to-face meetings were organized for the whole group to make amendments and discuss further recommendations. Results: A wide range of techniques can be used to assess muscle mass. Cost, availability, and ease of use can determine whether the techniques are better suited to clinical practice or are more useful for research. No one technique subserves all requirements but dual energy X-ray absorptiometry could be considered as a reference standard (but not a gold standard) for measuring muscle lean body mass. Conclusions: Based on the feasibility, accuracy, safety, and low cost, dual energy X-ray absorptiometry can be considered as the reference standard for measuring muscle mass.
Keywords
Lean mass, Muscle mass, Lean body mass, Reference standard, X-RAY ABSORPTIOMETRY, ELECTRICAL-IMPEDANCE MYOGRAPHY, IN-VIVO PRECISION, CELL LUNG-CANCER, BODY-COMPOSITION, SKELETAL-MUSCLE, BIOELECTRICAL-IMPEDANCE, SEROLOGICAL BIOMARKERS, BIOIMPEDANCE ANALYSIS, PHYSICAL-DISABILITY

Downloads

  • Buckinx et al-2018-Journal of Cachexia Sarcopenia and Muscle.pdf
    • full text
    • |
    • open access
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 217.68 KB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

Chicago
Buckinx, Fanny, Francesco Landi, Matteo Cesari, Roger A Fielding, Marjolein Visser, Klaus Engelke, Stefania Maggi, et al. 2018. “Pitfalls in the Measurement of Muscle Mass : a Need for a Reference Standard.” Journal of Cachexia Sarcopenia and Muscle 9 (2): 269–278.
APA
Buckinx, F., Landi, F., Cesari, M., Fielding, R. A., Visser, M., Engelke, K., Maggi, S., et al. (2018). Pitfalls in the measurement of muscle mass : a need for a reference standard. JOURNAL OF CACHEXIA SARCOPENIA AND MUSCLE, 9(2), 269–278.
Vancouver
1.
Buckinx F, Landi F, Cesari M, Fielding RA, Visser M, Engelke K, et al. Pitfalls in the measurement of muscle mass : a need for a reference standard. JOURNAL OF CACHEXIA SARCOPENIA AND MUSCLE. 2018;9(2):269–78.
MLA
Buckinx, Fanny et al. “Pitfalls in the Measurement of Muscle Mass : a Need for a Reference Standard.” JOURNAL OF CACHEXIA SARCOPENIA AND MUSCLE 9.2 (2018): 269–278. Print.
@article{8607977,
  abstract     = {Background: All proposed definitions of sarcopenia include the measurement of muscle mass, but the techniques and threshold values used vary. Indeed, the literature does not establish consensus on the best technique for measuring lean body mass. Thus, the objective measurement of sarcopenia is hampered by limitations intrinsic to assessment tools. The aim of this study was to review the methods to assess muscle mass and to reach consensus on the development of a reference standard. 
Methods: Literature reviews were performed by members of the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis working group on frailty and sarcopenia. Face-to-face meetings were organized for the whole group to make amendments and discuss further recommendations. 
Results: A wide range of techniques can be used to assess muscle mass. Cost, availability, and ease of use can determine whether the techniques are better suited to clinical practice or are more useful for research. No one technique subserves all requirements but dual energy X-ray absorptiometry could be considered as a reference standard (but not a gold standard) for measuring muscle lean body mass. 
Conclusions: Based on the feasibility, accuracy, safety, and low cost, dual energy X-ray absorptiometry can be considered as the reference standard for measuring muscle mass.},
  author       = {Buckinx, Fanny and Landi, Francesco and Cesari, Matteo and Fielding, Roger A and Visser, Marjolein and Engelke, Klaus and Maggi, Stefania and Dennison, Elaine and Al-Daghri, Nasser M and Allepaerts, Sophie and Bauer, Jurgen and Bautmans, Ivan and Brandi, Maria Luisa and Bruyere, Olivier and Cederholm, Tommy and Cerreta, Francesca and Cherubini, Antonio and Cooper, Cyrus and Cruz-Jentoft, Alphonso and McCloskey, Eugene and Dawson-Hughes, Bess and Kaufman, Jean and Laslop, Andrea and Petermans, Jean and Reginster, Jean-Yves and Rizzoli, Rene and Robinson, Sian and Rolland, Yves and Rueda, Ricardo and Vellas, Bruno and Kanis, John A},
  issn         = {2190-6009},
  journal      = {JOURNAL OF CACHEXIA SARCOPENIA AND MUSCLE},
  keywords     = {Lean mass,Muscle mass,Lean body mass,Reference standard,X-RAY ABSORPTIOMETRY,ELECTRICAL-IMPEDANCE MYOGRAPHY,IN-VIVO PRECISION,CELL LUNG-CANCER,BODY-COMPOSITION,SKELETAL-MUSCLE,BIOELECTRICAL-IMPEDANCE,SEROLOGICAL BIOMARKERS,BIOIMPEDANCE ANALYSIS,PHYSICAL-DISABILITY},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {2},
  pages        = {269--278},
  title        = {Pitfalls in the measurement of muscle mass : a need for a reference standard},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcsm.12268},
  volume       = {9},
  year         = {2018},
}

Altmetric
View in Altmetric
Web of Science
Times cited: