The agreement of different techniques for muscle measurement in diagnosing sarcopenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Linghong Li; Zhilin Xia; Xueqing Zeng; Anfen Tang; Ling Wang; Yi Su

doi:10.21037/qims-23-1089

The agreement of different techniques for muscle measurement in diagnosing sarcopenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2024 Mar 15;14(3):2177-2192. doi: 10.21037/qims-23-1089. Epub 2024 Mar 7.

Authors

Linghong Li^#¹, Zhilin Xia^#¹, Xueqing Zeng¹, Anfen Tang¹, Ling Wang^{2

3}, Yi Su¹

Affiliations

¹ Key Laboratory of Molecular Epidemiology of Hunan Province, School of Medicine, Hunan Normal University, Changsha, China.
² Department of Radiology, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, National Center for Orthopedics, Beijing, China.
³ Sarcopenia Research Center, Beijing Research Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedics, Beijing, China.

^# Contributed equally.

Abstract

Background: The measurement or estimation of muscle mass plays an important role in the diagnosis of sarcopenia. Beside dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), several modalities, including bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), ultrasound (US), computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), have helped to provide imaging or electrical biomarkers for muscle mass. This study was aimed at summarizing the diagnostic performance of different techniques on muscle assessment for sarcopenia.

Methods: Studies on the assessment of muscle mass by different techniques (compared with DXA), published from inception to 12 October, 2023 were retrieved from 4 electronic databases: the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science. The quality assessment of included studies was conducted using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2). The sensitivity, specificity, Cohen's kappa coefficient (κ), and Pearson correlation coefficient (r) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled and presented via forest plots. The area under the curve (AUC) with 95% CI was pooled and presented via summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curve.

Results: A total of 28 studies involving 4,926 participants were included. Compared with DXA, the pooled sensitivity and specificity, AUC, and Cohen's κ were 0.79 (95% CI: 0.71-0.86, P<0.001), 0.95 (95% CI: 0.82-0.99, P<0.001), and 0.88 (95% CI: 0.85-0.90), and 0.61 (95% CI: 0.51-0.72) for BIA. The pooled r value between DXA and BIA or US or MRI was 0.94 (95% CI: 0.92-0.96, P<0.001), 0.69 (95% CI: 0.54-0.80, P<0.001), and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.95-0.97, P=0.21), respectively. No qualified original study in relation to CT was included.

Conclusions: BIA, US, and MRI would provide acceptable diagnostic accuracy for sarcopenia by evaluating muscle mass in terms of sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and their higher correlations with DXA. Further investigation is required to elucidate the value of CT in diagnosing sarcopenia.

Keywords: Sarcopenia; imaging; meta-analysis; muscle mass; systematic review.