4.2 Article

Cutoff values for appendicular skeletal muscle mass using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry in a reference group of Turkish adults

期刊

NUTRITION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ncp.11083

关键词

body composition; dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry; sarcopenia; skeletal muscle

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to determine cutoff values for different appendicular skeletal muscle mass index (ASMI) methods measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) in a reference group of the Turkish population. The results showed that ASM/BMI was found to be the most suitable ASM adjustment method to predict muscle strength.
Background: The aim of this study is to determine cutoff values for different appendicular skeletal muscle mass index (ASMI) methods measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) in a reference group of the Turkish population.Methods: Body composition analyses were performed with DXA, and appendicular skeletal muscle mass (ASM) was adjusted to body size as ASMI using height squared (ASM/ht2), weight (ASM/wt), and body mass index (BMI) (ASM/BMI). Sex-specific cutoff values were obtained as 1 and 2 standard deviations (SDs) below the mean values of ASM/ht(2), ASM/wt, and ASM/BMI.Results: A total of 207 (106 women and 101 men) healthy adults were enrolled. Sex-specific cutoff values based on 1 SD below the mean values of ASM, ASM/ht(2), ASM/BMI, and ASM/wt were 14.44, 5.45, 0.61, and 24.07 in women and 22.63, 7.22, 0.90, and 29.04 in men, respectively; 2 SDs below the mean values of ASM, ASM/ht(2), ASM/BMI, and ASM/wt were 11.96, 4.65, 0.51, and 21.75 in women and 19.26, 6.40, 0.78, and 26.55 in men, respectively. ASM, ASM/BMI, ASM/ht(2), and ASM/wt were statistically significant positively correlated with handgrip strength (r = 0.81, r = 0.78, r = 0.73, and r = 0.67, respectively; P < 0.001).Conclusion: In this study, ASM/BMI was found to be the most suitable ASM adjustment method to predict muscle strength.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据