Cited by 53Veterinary Medicine and SurgeryNutrition and Health in AgingBody Composition Measurement Techniques

Evaluation of the use of muscle condition score and ultrasonographic measurements for assessment of muscle mass in dogs

Freeman, Lisa M., Michel, Kathryn E., Zanghi, Brian M., Vester Boler, Brittany M., Fages, Julien·2019·American Journal of Veterinary Research

Abstract

Objective To evaluate repeatability and reproducibility of muscle condition score (MCS) in dogs with various degrees of muscle loss; to compare MCS, muscle ultrasonographic measurements, and quantitative magnetic resonance (QMR) measurements; and to identify cutoff values for ultrasonographic measurements of muscle that can be used to identify dogs with cachexia and sarcopenia. Animals 40 dogs of various age, body condition score (BCS), and MCS. Procedures A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted. Body weight, BCS, QMR measurements, thoracic radiographic measurements, and muscle ultrasonographic measurements were assessed once in each dog. The MCS for each dog was assessed 3 separate times by 4 separate raters. Results For the MCS, overall κ for interrater agreement was 0.50 and overall κ for intrarater agreement ranged from 0.59 to 0.77. For both interrater and intrarater agreement, κ coefficients were higher for dogs with normal muscle mass and severe muscle loss and lower for dogs with mild and moderate muscle loss. The MCS was significantly correlated with age ( r = -0.62), vertebral epaxial muscle score (VEMS; r = 0.71), forelimb epaxial muscle score (FLEMS; r = 0.58), and BCS ( r = 0.73), and VEMS was significantly correlated ( r = 0.84) with FLEMS. Cutoff values for identification of mild muscle loss determined by use of VEMS and FLEMS were 1.124 and 1.666, respectively. Conclusions and clinical relevance MCS had substantial repeatability and moderate reproduc…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2460/ajvr.80.6.595

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Freeman, L. M., Michel, K. E., Zanghi, B. M., Vester Boler, B. M., & Fages, J.
Affiliations
  • Tufts University (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • 3Nestlé Purina Research, 1 Checkerboard Sq, St Louis, MO 63164.
Venue
American Journal of Veterinary Research
Published
2019-06
Volume
80
Issue
6
Pages
595-600
ISSN
0002-9645 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2947037380
Cited by
53
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2
FWCI
6.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Veterinary Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Veterinary Medicine and Surgery
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Nutrition and Health in Aging
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Body Composition Measurement Techniques
Keywords
muscle mass assessment, dogs, muscle mass loss, cachexia, sarcopenia, muscle ultrasound, quantitative MRI, body condition score, repeatability and reproducibility, interobserver agreement, cut-off values
MeSH terms
Animals, Body Weight, Cross-Sectional Studies, Dog Diseases, Dogs, Female, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Muscular Diseases, Prospective Studies, Radiography, Thoracic, Ultrasonography, Reproducibility of Results

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