BACKGROUND: This study critically appraises the measurement properties of tools to measure muscle mass, strength, and physical performance in community-dwelling older people. This can support the selection of a valid and reliable set of tools that is feasible for future screening and identification of sarcopenia. METHODS: The databases PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Cochrane were systematically searched (January 11, 2012). Studies were included if they investigated the measurement properties or feasibility, or both, of tools to measure muscle mass, strength, and physical performance in community-dwelling older people aged ≥60 years. The consensus-based standards for the selection of health status measurement instruments (COSMIN) checklist was used for quality appraisal of the studies. RESULTS: Sixty-two publications were deemed eligible, including tools for muscle mass (n = 16), muscle strength (n = 15), and physical performance (n = 31). Magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, and a 4-compartment model were used as gold standards for muscle mass assessment. Other frequently used measures of muscle mass are dual-energy x-ray and the bioelectrical impedance (BIA); however, reliability data of the BIA are lacking. Handheld dynamometry and gait speed or a short physical performance battery provide a valid and reliable measurement of muscle strength and physical performance, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: It can be concluded that several tools are available for valid and reliable measurements of muscle mass, strength, and performance in clinical settings. For a home-setting BIA, handheld dynamometry and gait speed or a short physical performance battery are the most valid, reliable, and feasible. The combination of selected instruments and its use for the screening and identification of sarcopenia in community-dwelling older people need further evaluation.
BACKGROUND: This study critically appraises the measurement properties of tools to measure muscle mass, strength, and physical performance in community-dwelling older people. This can support the selection of a valid and reliable set of tools that is feasible for future screening and identification of sarcopenia. METHODS: The databases PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Cochrane were systematically searched (January 11, 2012). Studies were included if they investigated the measurement properties or feasibility, or both, of tools to measure muscle mass, strength, and physical performance in community-dwelling older people aged ≥60 years. The consensus-based standards for the selection of health status measurement instruments (COSMIN) checklist was used for quality appraisal of the studies. RESULTS: Sixty-two publications were deemed eligible, including tools for muscle mass (n = 16), muscle strength (n = 15), and physical performance (n = 31). Magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, and a 4-compartment model were used as gold standards for muscle mass assessment. Other frequently used measures of muscle mass are dual-energy x-ray and the bioelectrical impedance (BIA); however, reliability data of the BIA are lacking. Handheld dynamometry and gait speed or a short physical performance battery provide a valid and reliable measurement of muscle strength and physical performance, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: It can be concluded that several tools are available for valid and reliable measurements of muscle mass, strength, and performance in clinical settings. For a home-setting BIA, handheld dynamometry and gait speed or a short physical performance battery are the most valid, reliable, and feasible. The combination of selected instruments and its use for the screening and identification of sarcopenia in community-dwelling older people need further evaluation.
Authors: René Rizzoli; Jean-Yves Reginster; Jean-François Arnal; Ivan Bautmans; Charlotte Beaudart; Heike Bischoff-Ferrari; Emmanuel Biver; Steven Boonen; Maria-Luisa Brandi; Arkadi Chines; Cyrus Cooper; Sol Epstein; Roger A Fielding; Bret Goodpaster; John A Kanis; Jean-Marc Kaufman; Andrea Laslop; Vincenzo Malafarina; Leocadio Rodriguez Mañas; Bruce H Mitlak; Richard O Oreffo; Jean Petermans; Kieran Reid; Yves Rolland; Avan Aihie Sayer; Yannis Tsouderos; Marjolein Visser; Olivier Bruyère Journal: Calcif Tissue Int Date: 2013-07-05 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: L Cao; S Chen; C Zou; X Ding; L Gao; Z Liao; G Liu; T K Malmstrom; J E Morley; J H Flaherty; Y An; B Dong Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Y Yokoyama; M Nishi; H Murayama; H Amano; Y Taniguchi; Y Nofuji; M Narita; E Matsuo; S Seino; Y Kawano; S Shinkai Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2017 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Melissa J J Voorn; Loes P A Aerts; Gerbern P Bootsma; Jacques B Bezuidenhout; Vivian E M van Kampen-van den Boogaart; Bart C Bongers; Dirk K de Ruysscher; Maryska L G Janssen-Heijnen Journal: Lung Date: 2021-03-10 Impact factor: 2.584