CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 154Nutrition and Health in AgingBody Composition Measurement TechniquesFrailty in Older Adults

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Diagnosis of sarcopenia by evaluating skeletal muscle mass by adjusted bioimpedance analysis validated with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry

Open access
Cheng, Keith Yu‐Kin, Chow, Simon Kwoon‐Ho, Hung, Vivian Wing‐Yin, Wong, Carissa Hing‐Wai, Wong, Ronald Man‐Yeung, Tsang, Charlotte Sau‐Lan, Kwok, Timothy, Cheung, Wing‐Hoi·2021·Journal of Cachexia Sarcopenia and Muscle
DOI 10.1002/jcsm.12825PMC PMC8718029
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Abstract Background This study aimed to adjust and cross‐validate skeletal muscle mass measurements between bioimpedance analysis (BIA) and dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry (DXA) for the screening of sarcopenia in the community and to estimate the prevalence of sarcopenia in Hong Kong. Methods Screening of sarcopenia was provided to community‐dwelling older adults. Appendicular skeletal muscle mass (ASM) was evaluated by BIA (InBody 120 or 720) and/or DXA. Handgrip strength and/or gait speed were assessed. Diagnosis of sarcopenia was based on the 2019 revised Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia cut‐offs. Agreement analysis was performed to cross‐validate ASM measurements by BIA and DXA. Multiple regression was used to explore contribution of measured parameters in predicting DXA ASM from BIA. Results A total of 1587 participants (age = 72 ± 12 years) were recruited; 1065 participants were screened by BIA (InBody 120) with 18 followed up by DXA, while the remaining 522 participants were assessed by the BIA (InBody 720) and DXA. The appendicular skeletal muscle mass index (ASMI) evaluated by BIA showed a mean difference of 2.89 ± 0.38 kg/m 2 (InBody 120) and 2.97 ± 0.45 kg/m 2 (InBody 720) against DXA gold standard. A significant overestimation of muscle mass was measured by BIA compared with DXA ( P < 0.005). BIA data were adjusted using prediction equation and mean difference reduced to −0.02 ± 0.31 kg/m 2 in cross‐validation. Prevalence of sarcopenia in older adults ≥65 ranged from 39.4% (based on ASMI by DXA) to 40.8% (based on predicted DXA ASMI from BIA). Low ASMI by DXA was found in 68.5% of the older adults screened. The percentage of older adults exhibited low handgrip strength ranged from 31.3% to 56%, while 49% showed low gait speed. Conclusions Bioimpedance analysis was found to overestimate skeletal muscle mass compared with DXA. With adjustment equations, BIA can be used as a quick and reliable tool for screening sarcopenia in community and clinical settings with limited access to better options.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jcsm.12825

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Definition of sarcopenia used in this study based on the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia (AWGS) 2019 guidelines, where ‘sarcopenia’ is defined as ‘low appendicular skeletal muscle mass index (ASMI) with either low muscle strength or low physical performance’, while ‘severe sarcopenia’ is defined as ‘low ASMI with low muscle strength and low physical performance’. DXA, dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry.
Figure 1 Definition of sarcopenia used in this study based on the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia (AWGS) 2019 guidelines, where ‘sarcopenia’ is defined as ‘low appendicular skeletal muscle mass index (ASMI) with either low muscle strength or low physical performance’, while ‘severe sarcopenia’ is defined as ‘low ASMI with low muscle strength and low physical performance’. DXA, dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Appendicular skeletal muscle mass index (ASMI, kg/m2) evaluated by (BIA) and dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry (DXA). Top and bottom lines indicate ±1.96 SD. (A) BIA (InBody 120) ASMI vs. age in Dataset120 (n = 1065). (B) BIA (InBody 720) ASMI vs. age in Dataset720 (n = 522). (C) DXA ASMI vs. age in Dataset120 (n = 18). (D) DXA ASMI vs. age in Dataset720 (n = 522). (E) Correlation between DXA and BIA ASMI in Dataset120 (r 2 = 0.867, n = 18, P < 0.05). (F) Correlation between DXA and BIA ASMI in Dataset720 (r 2 = 0.893, n = 522, P < 0.05).
Figure 2 Appendicular skeletal muscle mass index (ASMI, kg/m2) evaluated by (BIA) and dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry (DXA). Top and bottom lines indicate ±1.96 SD. (A) BIA (InBody 120) ASMI vs. age in Dataset120 (n = 1065). (B) BIA (InBody 720) ASMI vs. age in Dataset720 (n = 522). (C) DXA ASMI vs. age in Dataset120 (n = 18). (D) DXA ASMI vs. age in Dataset720 (n = 522). (E) Correlation between DXA and BIA ASMI in Dataset120 (r 2 = 0.867, n = 18, P < 0.05). (F) Correlation between DXA and BIA ASMI in Dataset720 (r 2 = 0.893, n = 522, P < 0.05).CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Appendicular skeletal muscle mass (ASMI, kg/m2) as evaluated by dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry (DXA). Top and bottom lines on (C) and (D) indicate ±1.96 SD. (A) Flow chart showing the breakdown of different tests and number of subjects in each dataset. (B) ASMI vs. age coloured by gender (n = 540). (C) Male DXA ASMI vs. age (n = 299). (D) Female DXA ASMI vs. age (n = 241). BIA, bioimpedance analysis.
Figure 3 Appendicular skeletal muscle mass (ASMI, kg/m2) as evaluated by dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry (DXA). Top and bottom lines on (C) and (D) indicate ±1.96 SD. (A) Flow chart showing the breakdown of different tests and number of subjects in each dataset. (B) ASMI vs. age coloured by gender (n = 540). (C) Male DXA ASMI vs. age (n = 299). (D) Female DXA ASMI vs. age (n = 241). BIA, bioimpedance analysis.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Handgrip strength measured by dynamometer in kilograms (kg) and gait speed by 6 m walk test measured in seconds (s) plotted against age separated by gender. Top and bottom lines indicate ±1.96 SD. (A) Female handgrip strength by age (n = 1160). (B) Male handgrip strength by age (n = 427). (C) Six metre walk time for female gait speed by age (n = 226). (D) Six metre walk time for male gait speed by age (n = 296).
Figure 4 Handgrip strength measured by dynamometer in kilograms (kg) and gait speed by 6 m walk test measured in seconds (s) plotted against age separated by gender. Top and bottom lines indicate ±1.96 SD. (A) Female handgrip strength by age (n = 1160). (B) Male handgrip strength by age (n = 427). (C) Six metre walk time for female gait speed by age (n = 226). (D) Six metre walk time for male gait speed by age (n = 296).CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Bland–Altman plot comparing appendicular skeletal muscle mass (ASM) and appendicular skeletal muscle mass index (ASMI) measured between bioimpedance analysis (BIA) and dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry (DXA) in Dataset120 (n = 18) and Dataset720 (n = 522). Top and bottom reference lines indicate 95% confidence interval. (A) ASM mean difference = 6.77 ± 1.24 kg, limits of agreement = 4.35, 9.20. (B) ASM mean difference = 8.25 ± 1.80 kg, limits of agreement = 4.73, 11.77. (C) ASMI mean difference = 2.89 ± 0.38 kg/m2, limits of agreement = 2.15, 3.63. (D) ASMI mean difference = 3.11 ± 0.45 kg/m2, limits of agreement = 2.22, 4.00.
Figure 5 Bland–Altman plot comparing appendicular skeletal muscle mass (ASM) and appendicular skeletal muscle mass index (ASMI) measured between bioimpedance analysis (BIA) and dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry (DXA) in Dataset120 (n = 18) and Dataset720 (n = 522). Top and bottom reference lines indicate 95% confidence interval. (A) ASM mean difference = 6.77 ± 1.24 kg, limits of agreement = 4.35, 9.20. (B) ASM mean difference = 8.25 ± 1.80 kg, limits of agreement = 4.73, 11.77. (C) ASMI mean difference = 2.89 ± 0.38 kg/m2, limits of agreement = 2.15, 3.63. (D) ASMI mean difference = 3.11 ± 0.45 kg/m2, limits of agreement = 2.22, 4.00.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 6 Bland–Altman plot comparing predicted appendicular skeletal muscle mass (ASM) and appendicular skeletal muscle mass index (ASMI) vs. actual dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry (DXA) measurements in one‐third (n = 174) of Dataset720 after deriving regression model with the remaining two‐thirds. Top and bottom reference lines indicate 95% confidence interval. (A) ASM mean difference = −0.04 ± 0.82, limits of agreement = 1.57, −1.65. (B) ASMI mean difference = −0.02 ± 0.31, limits of agreement = 0.58, −0.61.
Figure 6 Bland–Altman plot comparing predicted appendicular skeletal muscle mass (ASM) and appendicular skeletal muscle mass index (ASMI) vs. actual dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry (DXA) measurements in one‐third (n = 174) of Dataset720 after deriving regression model with the remaining two‐thirds. Top and bottom reference lines indicate 95% confidence interval. (A) ASM mean difference = −0.04 ± 0.82, limits of agreement = 1.57, −1.65. (B) ASMI mean difference = −0.02 ± 0.31, limits of agreement = 0.58, −0.61.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 7 Recommended application workflow of bioimpedance analysis (BIA) for sarcopenia screening. (A) Skeletal muscle mass (SMM) can be taken directly from the report of a commercially available BIA device (InBody 120 or 720) and used as the appendicular skeletal muscle mass (ASM) as defined by European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People or Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia. (B, C) The SMM or ASM measured by BIA can be substituted into the relevant equations along with other parameters of weight, height, gender, or body mass index for the estimation of predicted ASM (which is the expected ASM from a DXA measurement). (B) Prediction equation from InBody 120 measurement. (C) Prediction equation from InBody 720 measurement. (D) This predicted ASM (ASMpredicted) can be directly compared with the DXA cut‐off values defined by the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People or Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia for male or female for the diagnosis of low muscle mass content. Suggested BIA application for muscle mass evaluation in community settings.
Figure 7 Recommended application workflow of bioimpedance analysis (BIA) for sarcopenia screening. (A) Skeletal muscle mass (SMM) can be taken directly from the report of a commercially available BIA device (InBody 120 or 720) and used as the appendicular skeletal muscle mass (ASM) as defined by European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People or Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia. (B, C) The SMM or ASM measured by BIA can be substituted into the relevant equations along with other parameters of weight, height, gender, or body mass index for the estimation of predicted ASM (which is the expected ASM from a DXA measurement). (B) Prediction equation from InBody 120 measurement. (C) Prediction equation from InBody 720 measurement. (D) This predicted ASM (ASMpredicted) can be directly compared with the DXA cut‐off values defined by the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People or Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia for male or female for the diagnosis of low muscle mass content. Suggested BIA application for muscle mass evaluation in community settings.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 31 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 154

Related

Metadata

Authors
Cheng, K. Y., Chow, S. K., Hung, V. W., Wong, C. H., Wong, R. M., Tsang, C. S., Kwok, T., & Cheung, W.
Affiliations
Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
Corresponding author
Chow, Simon Kwoon‐Ho
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Cachexia Sarcopenia and Muscle
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-10-04
Volume
12
Issue
6
Pages
2163-2173
ISSN
  • 2190-5991 (ISSN-L)
  • 2190-6009
DOI
10.1002/jcsm.12825
PMC
PMC8718029
OpenAlex
W3202032823
Cited by
154
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 1
FWCI
11.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Cachexia Sarcopenia and Muscle (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Chinese University of Hong Kong (4054479)
  • Health and Medical Research Fund (HCPS 02180118)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology (medical) › Nutrition and Health in Aging
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology (medical) › Body Composition Measurement Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Frailty in Older Adults
Keywords
sarcopenia, skeletal muscle mass, bioelectrical impedance analysis, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, appendicular skeletal muscle mass index, cross-validation, prediction equations, sarcopenia screening, older adults, grip strength, walking speed, sarcopenia prevalence, Hong Kong, Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia criteria, measurement overestimation, community-dwelling
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Body Composition, Humans, Middle Aged, Absorptiometry, Photon, Electric Impedance, Muscle, Skeletal, Hand Strength, Sarcopenia

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review