Osvaldo Costa Moreira1, Cláudia Eliza Patrocínio de Oliveira2, Ramón Candia-Luján3, Ena Monserrat Romero-Pérez4, José Antonio de Paz Fernandez5. 1. Instituto de Biomedicina. Universidad de León, León (España).Instituto de Ciencias Biológicas y de la Salud. Universidad Federal de Viçosa, Campus Florestal, Florestal, Minas Gerais (Brasil).. osvaldo.moreira@ufv.br. 2. Instituto de Biomedicina. Universidad de León, León (España). Departamento de Educación Física. Universidad Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa, Minas Gerais (Brasil).. claudiapatrocinio@ymail.com. 3. Facultad de Ciencias de la Cultura Física. Universidad Autónoma de Chihuahua, Chihuahua (México).. rcandia@uach.mx. 4. Departamento de Ciencias del Deporte y de la Actividad Física. Universidad de Sonora, Hermosillo, Sonora (México).. eromero63@hotmail.com. 5. Instituto de Biomedicina. Universidad de León, León (España).. japazf@unileon.es.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: in recent years, research about muscle mass has gained popularity for their relationship to health. Thus precise measurement of muscle mass may have clinical application once may interfere with the diagnosis and prescription drug or drug treatment. OBJECTIVE: to conduct a systematic review of the methods most used for evaluation of muscle mass in randomized controlled trials, with its advantages and disadvantages. METHODS: we conducted a search of the data bases Pub- Med, Web of Science and Scopus, with words "muscle mass", "measurement", "assessment" and "evaluation", combined in this way: "muscle mass" AND (assessment OR measurement OR evaluation). RESULTS: 23 studies were recovered and analyzed, all in English. 69.56% only used a method for quantification of muscle mass; 69.57% used dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA); in 45.46% the type of measure used was the body lean mass; and 51.61% chose the whole body as a site of measurement. CONCLUSIONS: in the randomized controlled trials analyzed the majority used just one method of assessment, with the DXA being the method most used, the body lean mass the measurement type most used and total body the most common site of measure. Copyright AULA MEDICA EDICIONES 2014. Published by AULA MEDICA. All rights reserved.
INTRODUCTION: in recent years, research about muscle mass has gained popularity for their relationship to health. Thus precise measurement of muscle mass may have clinical application once may interfere with the diagnosis and prescription drug or drug treatment. OBJECTIVE: to conduct a systematic review of the methods most used for evaluation of muscle mass in randomized controlled trials, with its advantages and disadvantages. METHODS: we conducted a search of the data bases Pub- Med, Web of Science and Scopus, with words "muscle mass", "measurement", "assessment" and "evaluation", combined in this way: "muscle mass" AND (assessment OR measurement OR evaluation). RESULTS: 23 studies were recovered and analyzed, all in English. 69.56% only used a method for quantification of muscle mass; 69.57% used dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA); in 45.46% the type of measure used was the body lean mass; and 51.61% chose the whole body as a site of measurement. CONCLUSIONS: in the randomized controlled trials analyzed the majority used just one method of assessment, with the DXA being the method most used, the body lean mass the measurement type most used and total body the most common site of measure. Copyright AULA MEDICA EDICIONES 2014. Published by AULA MEDICA. All rights reserved.
Authors: H J Djossou; M A Tazi; M Ahmed Ghassem; N El Ouardi; L Taoubane; A Majjad; S Sadni; H Toufik; L Achemlal; A El Maghraoui Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2021-01-02 Impact factor: 4.507