Cited by 17Nutrition and Health in AgingVeterinary Medicine and SurgeryBody Composition Measurement Techniques

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Usefulness of muscle condition score and ultrasonographic measurements for assessment of muscle mass in cats with cachexia and sarcopenia

Freeman, Lisa M., Michel, Kathryn E., Zanghi, Brian M., Vester Boler, Brittany M., Fages, Julien·2020·American Journal of Veterinary Research

Abstract

Objective To compare muscle condition scores (MCSs) and muscle ultrasonographic measurements in cats with and without muscle loss and to evaluate repeatability and reproducibility of MCS assessment. Animals 40 cats of various ages, body condition scores (BCSs), and MCSs. Procedures A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted. Body weight, BCS, MCS, epaxial muscle height (EMH), vertebral epaxial muscle score (VEMS), and forelimb epaxial muscle score (FLEMS) were assessed in each cat. The MCS for each cat was assessed 3 separate times by each of 5 raters. Results The MCS was significantly correlated with EMH ( r = 0.59), VEMS ( r = 0.66), and FLEMS ( r = 0.41). For MCS, the overall value of the κ coefficient for interrater agreement (reproducibility) was 0.43 and the overall value of the κ coefficient for intrarater agreement (repeatability) ranged from 0.49 to 0.76. Conclusions and clinical relevance Ultrasonographic measurements of muscle may be useful for assessing muscle loss in individual cats over time. However, for the cats of this study, no advantage was observed for assessment of VEMS or FLEMS over EMH. Substantial repeatability and moderate reproducibility were shown when MCS was used for assessment of muscle mass in cats. Prospective ultrasonographic studies are warranted to evaluate the usefulness of MCS and EMH assessment for evaluation of changes in muscle mass of cats over time.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2460/ajvr.81.3.254

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. Freeman, 2012, Cachexia and sarcopenia: emerging syndromes of importance in dogs and cats, 26, 3, 10.1111/j.1939-1676.2011.00838.x · DOI
  2. von Haehling, 2017, Wasting away: how to treat cachexia and muscle wasting in chronic disease?, 83, 2599, 10.1111/bcp.13387 · DOI
  3. Michel, 2011, Correlation of a feline muscle mass score with body composition determined by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, 106, S57, 10.1017/S000711451100050X · DOI · Paper page
  4. Baldwin, 2010, AAHA nutritional assessment guidelines for cats and cats, 46, 285, 10.5326/0460285 · DOI
  5. Freeman, 2011, WSAVA nutritional assessment guidelines, 52, 385, 10.1111/j.1748-5827.2011.01079.x · DOI · Paper page
  6. Hutchinson, 2012, Assessment of methods of evaluating sarcopenia in old dogs, 73, 1794, 10.2460/ajvr.73.11.1794 · DOI
  7. Bullen, 2017, Validation of ultrasonographic muscle thickness measurements as compared to the gold standard of computed tomography in dogs, 5, e2926, 10.7717/peerj.2926 · DOI
  8. Sergi, 2016, Imaging of sarcopenia, 85, 1519, 10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.04.009 · DOI
  9. Freeman, 2018, Evaluation of a quantitatively derived value for assessment of muscle mass in clinically normal cats, 79, 1188, 10.2460/ajvr.79.11.1188 · DOI
  10. Sharma, 2015, Meta-analysis of the relation of body mass index to all-cause and cardiovascular mortality and hospitalization in patients with chronic heart failure, 115, 1428, 10.1016/j.amjcard.2015.02.024 · DOI
  11. Finn, 2010, The relationship between body weight, body condition, and survival in cats with heart failure, 24, 1369, 10.1111/j.1939-1676.2010.0584.x · DOI
  12. Freeman, 2016, Evaluation of weight loss over time in cats with chronic kidney disease, 30, 1661, 10.1111/jvim.14561 · DOI
  13. Lang, 2010, Sarcopenia: etiology, clinical consequences, intervention, and assessment, 21, 543, 10.1007/s00198-009-1059-y · DOI
  14. Boutin, 2015, Sarcopenia: current concepts and imaging implications, 205, W255, 10.2214/AJR.15.14635 · DOI
  15. Frontera, 2017, Physiologic changes of the musculoskeletal system with aging: a brief review, 28, 705, 10.1016/j.pmr.2017.06.004 · DOI
  16. J, 2019, Comparison of computed tomographic attenuation values for epaxial muscles in old and young dogs, 80, 174, 10.2460/ajvr.80.2.174 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

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, St Louis, MO 63164.
Venue
American Journal of Veterinary Research
Published
2020-03
Volume
81
Issue
3
Pages
254-259
ISSN
0002-9645 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3007054828
Cited by
17
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2
FWCI
1.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Veterinary Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology (medical) › Nutrition and Health in Aging
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Veterinary Medicine and Surgery
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology (medical) › Body Composition Measurement Techniques
Keywords
muscle mass assessment, cats, cachexia, sarcopenia, muscle mass loss, muscle ultrasound, body condition score, interobserver agreement, repeatability
MeSH terms
Animals, Body Composition, Cachexia, Cat Diseases, Cats, Cross-Sectional Studies, Prospective Studies, Reproducibility of Results, 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