2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2014.09.007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Validity of Ultrasound Prediction Equations for Total and Regional Muscularity in Middle-aged and Older Men and Women

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
46
0
1

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 55 publications
(48 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
46
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Sanada et al (44) measured skeletal muscle thickness in Japanese adults with ultrasound at several anatomic sites and the authors reported total body prediction equations using MRI as the reference. Abe et al (45) recently reviewed previously published regional and total muscle mass ultrasound prediction equations using DXA as the reference criterion. The authors observed good correlations between DXA-derived muscle indices and corresponding ultrasound predictions (R all ≥0·9 and P < 0·001) in men and women with variable between-method significant bias, Sanada's total muscle mass equation (Sanada et al (44) ) being the only one without non-significant bias.…”
Section: Ultrasoundmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Sanada et al (44) measured skeletal muscle thickness in Japanese adults with ultrasound at several anatomic sites and the authors reported total body prediction equations using MRI as the reference. Abe et al (45) recently reviewed previously published regional and total muscle mass ultrasound prediction equations using DXA as the reference criterion. The authors observed good correlations between DXA-derived muscle indices and corresponding ultrasound predictions (R all ≥0·9 and P < 0·001) in men and women with variable between-method significant bias, Sanada's total muscle mass equation (Sanada et al (44) ) being the only one without non-significant bias.…”
Section: Ultrasoundmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several studies have already documented the validity of muscle size estimates (thickness and cross‐sectional area) obtained by ultrasound against magnetic resonance imaging [11‐13], computed tomography [14], and dual‐energy x‐ray absorptiometry [15,16]. We think that we do not need additional demonstrations: muscle ultrasonography is easy to use (also for bedside evaluations of patients, as Drs Bınay Safer and Safer acknowledged in their letter), noninvasive, safe (and radiation free), and relatively inexpensive.…”
Section: Rebuttal To Claim Nomentioning
confidence: 90%
“…The authors also reported on two prediction equations for estimating DXA‐derived muscle mass. Although not reported within this paper, we previously noted that two of those prediction equations selected by Nijholt et al included systematic error . Over the last couple of years, we have published several prediction equations for estimating DXA‐derived appendicular lean mass in older adults .…”
mentioning
confidence: 80%