4.4 Article

Total and Appendicular Lean Mass Reference Ranges for Australian Men and Women: The Geelong Osteoporosis Study

期刊

CALCIFIED TISSUE INTERNATIONAL
卷 94, 期 4, 页码 363-372

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00223-013-9830-7

关键词

Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry; Lean mass; Muscle wasting; Reference values; Sarcopenia

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) [251638, 299831, 628582]
  2. Perpetual Trustees
  3. Geelong Region Medical Research Foundation
  4. NHMRC Early Career Fellowship [1012472]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to develop reference ranges for total and appendicular lean mass measured using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) from a randomly selected population-based sample of men and women residing in southeastern Australia. Men (n = 1,411) and women (n = 960) aged 20-93 years, enrolled in the Geelong Osteoporosis Study, were randomly selected from the Barwon Statistical Division using the electoral roll as a sampling frame in 2001-2006 (67 % participation) and 1993-1997 (77 % participation), respectively. Using DXA (Lunar DPX-L or Prodigy Pro) at baseline for men and at the 10-year follow-up for women (2004-2008), total and appendicular lean mass were measured. Means and standard deviations for each lean mass measure (absolute and relative to height squared) were generated for each age decade, and cutpoints equivalent to T scores of -2.0 and -1.0 were calculated using data from young adult men and women aged 20-39 years. Young adult reference data were derived from 374 men and 308 women. Cutpoints for relative appendicular lean mass equal to T scores of -2.0 and -1.0 were 6.94 and 7.87 kg/m(2) for men and 5.30 and 6.07 kg/m(2) for women. The proportions of men and women aged a parts per thousand yen80 years with a T score less than -2.0 were 16.0 and 6.2 %, respectively. These reference ranges may be useful for identifying lean mass deficits in the assessment of muscle wasting and sarcopenia.

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

4.4
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