Pitfalls in the measurement of muscle mass: a need for a reference standard

Fanny Buckinx, Francesco Landi, Matteo Cesari, Roger A. Fielding, Marjolein Visser, Klaus Engelke, Stefania Maggi, Elaine Dennison, Nasser M. Al-Daghri, Sophie Allepaerts, Jurgen Bauer, Ivan Bautmans, Maria Luisa Brandi, Olivier Bruyère, Tommy Cederholm, Francesca Cerreta, Antonio Cherubini, Cyrus Cooper, Alphonso Cruz-Jentoft, Eugene McCloskey & 11 others Bess Dawson-Hughes, Jean Marc Kaufman, Andrea Laslop, Jean Petermans, Jean Yves Reginster, René Rizzoli, Sian Robinson, Yves Rolland, Ricardo Rueda, Bruno Vellas, John A. Kanis

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)269-278
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle
Volume9
Issue number2
Early online date19 Jan 2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2018

Fingerprint

Sarcopenia
Muscles
Photon Absorptiometry
Consensus
Costs and Cost Analysis
Safety
Research

Keywords

  • Lean body mass
  • Lean mass
  • Muscle mass
  • Reference standard

Cite this

Buckinx, F., Landi, F., Cesari, M., Fielding, R. A., Visser, M., Engelke, K., ... Kanis, J. A. (2018). Pitfalls in the measurement of muscle mass: a need for a reference standard. Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle, 9(2), 269-278. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcsm.12268
Buckinx, Fanny ; Landi, Francesco ; Cesari, Matteo ; Fielding, Roger A. ; Visser, Marjolein ; Engelke, Klaus ; Maggi, Stefania ; Dennison, Elaine ; Al-Daghri, Nasser M. ; Allepaerts, Sophie ; Bauer, Jurgen ; Bautmans, Ivan ; Brandi, Maria Luisa ; Bruyère, Olivier ; Cederholm, Tommy ; Cerreta, Francesca ; Cherubini, Antonio ; Cooper, Cyrus ; Cruz-Jentoft, Alphonso ; McCloskey, Eugene ; Dawson-Hughes, Bess ; Kaufman, Jean Marc ; Laslop, Andrea ; Petermans, Jean ; Reginster, Jean Yves ; Rizzoli, René ; Robinson, Sian ; Rolland, Yves ; Rueda, Ricardo ; Vellas, Bruno ; Kanis, John A. / Pitfalls in the measurement of muscle mass : a need for a reference standard. In: Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle. 2018 ; Vol. 9, No. 2. pp. 269-278.
@article{3df8f04a78d9497396a5836ed146a879,
title = "Pitfalls in the measurement of muscle mass: a need for a reference standard",
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 body mass, Lean mass, Muscle mass, Reference standard",
author = "Fanny Buckinx and Francesco Landi and Matteo Cesari and Fielding, {Roger A.} and Marjolein Visser and Klaus Engelke and Stefania Maggi and Elaine Dennison and Al-Daghri, {Nasser M.} and Sophie Allepaerts and Jurgen Bauer and Ivan Bautmans and Brandi, {Maria Luisa} and Olivier Bruy{\`e}re and Tommy Cederholm and Francesca Cerreta and Antonio Cherubini and Cyrus Cooper and Alphonso Cruz-Jentoft and Eugene McCloskey and Bess Dawson-Hughes and Kaufman, {Jean Marc} and Andrea Laslop and Jean Petermans and Reginster, {Jean Yves} and Ren{\'e} Rizzoli and Sian Robinson and Yves Rolland and Ricardo Rueda and Bruno Vellas and Kanis, {John A.}",
year = "2018",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1002/jcsm.12268",
language = "English",
volume = "9",
pages = "269--278",
journal = "Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle",
issn = "2190-5991",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "2",

}

Buckinx, F, Landi, F, Cesari, M, Fielding, RA, Visser, M, Engelke, K, Maggi, S, Dennison, E, Al-Daghri, NM, Allepaerts, S, Bauer, J, Bautmans, I, Brandi, ML, Bruyère, O, Cederholm, T, Cerreta, F, Cherubini, A, Cooper, C, Cruz-Jentoft, A, McCloskey, E, Dawson-Hughes, B, Kaufman, JM, Laslop, A, Petermans, J, Reginster, JY, Rizzoli, R, Robinson, S, Rolland, Y, Rueda, R, Vellas, B & Kanis, JA 2018, 'Pitfalls in the measurement of muscle mass: a need for a reference standard' Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 269-278. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcsm.12268

Pitfalls in the measurement of muscle mass : a need for a reference standard. / Buckinx, Fanny; Landi, Francesco; Cesari, Matteo; Fielding, Roger A.; Visser, Marjolein; Engelke, Klaus; Maggi, Stefania; Dennison, Elaine; Al-Daghri, Nasser M.; Allepaerts, Sophie; Bauer, Jurgen; Bautmans, Ivan; Brandi, Maria Luisa; Bruyère, Olivier; Cederholm, Tommy; Cerreta, Francesca; Cherubini, Antonio; Cooper, Cyrus; Cruz-Jentoft, Alphonso; McCloskey, Eugene; Dawson-Hughes, Bess; Kaufman, Jean Marc; Laslop, Andrea; Petermans, Jean; Reginster, Jean Yves; Rizzoli, René; Robinson, Sian; Rolland, Yves; Rueda, Ricardo; Vellas, Bruno; Kanis, John A.

In: Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle, Vol. 9, No. 2, 04.2018, p. 269-278.

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Pitfalls in the measurement of muscle mass

T2 - a need for a reference standard

AU - Buckinx, Fanny

AU - Landi, Francesco

AU - Cesari, Matteo

AU - Fielding, Roger A.

AU - Visser, Marjolein

AU - Engelke, Klaus

AU - Maggi, Stefania

AU - Dennison, Elaine

AU - Al-Daghri, Nasser M.

AU - Allepaerts, Sophie

AU - Bauer, Jurgen

AU - Bautmans, Ivan

AU - Brandi, Maria Luisa

AU - Bruyère, Olivier

AU - Cederholm, Tommy

AU - Cerreta, Francesca

AU - Cherubini, Antonio

AU - Cooper, Cyrus

AU - Cruz-Jentoft, Alphonso

AU - McCloskey, Eugene

AU - Dawson-Hughes, Bess

AU - Kaufman, Jean Marc

AU - Laslop, Andrea

AU - Petermans, Jean

AU - Reginster, Jean Yves

AU - Rizzoli, René

AU - Robinson, Sian

AU - Rolland, Yves

AU - Rueda, Ricardo

AU - Vellas, Bruno

AU - Kanis, John A.

PY - 2018/4

Y1 - 2018/4

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Lean body mass

KW - Lean mass

KW - Muscle mass

KW - Reference standard

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85044768875&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85044768875&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/jcsm.12268

DO - 10.1002/jcsm.12268

M3 - Article

VL - 9

SP - 269

EP - 278

JO - Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle

JF - Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle

SN - 2190-5991

IS - 2

ER -