Cargando…

Reference Values for Skeletal Muscle Mass – Current Concepts and Methodological Considerations

Assessment of a low skeletal muscle mass (SM) is important for diagnosis of ageing and disease-associated sarcopenia and is hindered by heterogeneous methods and terminologies that lead to differences in diagnostic criteria among studies and even among consensus definitions. The aim of this review w...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Walowski, Carina O., Braun, Wiebke, Maisch, Michael J., Jensen, Björn, Peine, Sven, Norman, Kristina, Müller, Manfred J., Bosy-Westphal, Anja
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7146130/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32178373
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu12030755
_version_ 1783520128791478272
author Walowski, Carina O.
Braun, Wiebke
Maisch, Michael J.
Jensen, Björn
Peine, Sven
Norman, Kristina
Müller, Manfred J.
Bosy-Westphal, Anja
author_facet Walowski, Carina O.
Braun, Wiebke
Maisch, Michael J.
Jensen, Björn
Peine, Sven
Norman, Kristina
Müller, Manfred J.
Bosy-Westphal, Anja
author_sort Walowski, Carina O.
collection PubMed
description Assessment of a low skeletal muscle mass (SM) is important for diagnosis of ageing and disease-associated sarcopenia and is hindered by heterogeneous methods and terminologies that lead to differences in diagnostic criteria among studies and even among consensus definitions. The aim of this review was to analyze and summarize previously published cut-offs for SM applied in clinical and research settings and to facilitate comparison of results between studies. Multiple published reference values for discrepant parameters of SM were identified from 64 studies and the underlying methodological assumptions and limitations are compared including different concepts for normalization of SM for body size and fat mass (FM). Single computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging images and appendicular lean soft tissue by dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) or bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) are taken as a valid substitute of total SM because they show a high correlation with results from whole body imaging in cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. However, the random error of these methods limits the applicability of these substitutes in the assessment of individual cases and together with the systematic error limits the accurate detection of changes in SM. Adverse effects of obesity on muscle quality and function may lead to an underestimation of sarcopenia in obesity and may justify normalization of SM for FM. In conclusion, results for SM can only be compared with reference values using the same method, BIA- or DXA-device and an appropriate reference population. Limitations of proxies for total SM as well as normalization of SM for FM are important content-related issues that need to be considered in longitudinal studies, populations with obesity or older subjects.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7146130
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-71461302020-04-15 Reference Values for Skeletal Muscle Mass – Current Concepts and Methodological Considerations Walowski, Carina O. Braun, Wiebke Maisch, Michael J. Jensen, Björn Peine, Sven Norman, Kristina Müller, Manfred J. Bosy-Westphal, Anja Nutrients Review Assessment of a low skeletal muscle mass (SM) is important for diagnosis of ageing and disease-associated sarcopenia and is hindered by heterogeneous methods and terminologies that lead to differences in diagnostic criteria among studies and even among consensus definitions. The aim of this review was to analyze and summarize previously published cut-offs for SM applied in clinical and research settings and to facilitate comparison of results between studies. Multiple published reference values for discrepant parameters of SM were identified from 64 studies and the underlying methodological assumptions and limitations are compared including different concepts for normalization of SM for body size and fat mass (FM). Single computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging images and appendicular lean soft tissue by dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) or bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) are taken as a valid substitute of total SM because they show a high correlation with results from whole body imaging in cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. However, the random error of these methods limits the applicability of these substitutes in the assessment of individual cases and together with the systematic error limits the accurate detection of changes in SM. Adverse effects of obesity on muscle quality and function may lead to an underestimation of sarcopenia in obesity and may justify normalization of SM for FM. In conclusion, results for SM can only be compared with reference values using the same method, BIA- or DXA-device and an appropriate reference population. Limitations of proxies for total SM as well as normalization of SM for FM are important content-related issues that need to be considered in longitudinal studies, populations with obesity or older subjects. MDPI 2020-03-12 /pmc/articles/PMC7146130/ /pubmed/32178373 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu12030755 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Review
Walowski, Carina O.
Braun, Wiebke
Maisch, Michael J.
Jensen, Björn
Peine, Sven
Norman, Kristina
Müller, Manfred J.
Bosy-Westphal, Anja
Reference Values for Skeletal Muscle Mass – Current Concepts and Methodological Considerations
title Reference Values for Skeletal Muscle Mass – Current Concepts and Methodological Considerations
title_full Reference Values for Skeletal Muscle Mass – Current Concepts and Methodological Considerations
title_fullStr Reference Values for Skeletal Muscle Mass – Current Concepts and Methodological Considerations
title_full_unstemmed Reference Values for Skeletal Muscle Mass – Current Concepts and Methodological Considerations
title_short Reference Values for Skeletal Muscle Mass – Current Concepts and Methodological Considerations
title_sort reference values for skeletal muscle mass – current concepts and methodological considerations
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7146130/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32178373
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu12030755
work_keys_str_mv AT walowskicarinao referencevaluesforskeletalmusclemasscurrentconceptsandmethodologicalconsiderations
AT braunwiebke referencevaluesforskeletalmusclemasscurrentconceptsandmethodologicalconsiderations
AT maischmichaelj referencevaluesforskeletalmusclemasscurrentconceptsandmethodologicalconsiderations
AT jensenbjorn referencevaluesforskeletalmusclemasscurrentconceptsandmethodologicalconsiderations
AT peinesven referencevaluesforskeletalmusclemasscurrentconceptsandmethodologicalconsiderations
AT normankristina referencevaluesforskeletalmusclemasscurrentconceptsandmethodologicalconsiderations
AT mullermanfredj referencevaluesforskeletalmusclemasscurrentconceptsandmethodologicalconsiderations
AT bosywestphalanja referencevaluesforskeletalmusclemasscurrentconceptsandmethodologicalconsiderations