Diagnostic test accuracy of ultrasound for sarcopenia diagnosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Hongbo Fu, Lei Wang, Wenyi Zhang, Jing Lu, Ming Yang, Hongbo Fu, Lei Wang, Wenyi Zhang, Jing Lu, Ming Yang

Abstract

Muscle ultrasound is an emerging tool for diagnosing sarcopenia. This review aims to summarize the current knowledge on the diagnostic test accuracy of ultrasound for the diagnosis of sarcopenia. We collected data from Ovid Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Diagnostic test accuracy studies using muscle ultrasound to detect sarcopenia were included. Bivariate random-effects models based on sensitivity and specificity pairs were used to calculate the pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity and the area under the curves (AUCs) of summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC), if possible. We screened 7332 publications and included 17 studies with 2143 participants (mean age range: 52.6-82.8 years). All included studies had a high risk of bias. The study populations, reference standards and ultrasound measurement methods varied across the studies. Lower extremity muscles were commonly studied, whereas muscle thickness (MT) was the most widely measured parameter, followed by the cross-sectional area (CSA). The MTs of the gastrocnemius, rectus femoris, tibialis anterior, soleus, rectus abdominis and geniohyoid muscles showed a moderate diagnostic accuracy for sarcopenia (SROC-AUC 0.83, 8 studies; SROC-AUC 0.78, 5 studies; AUC 0.82, 1 study; AUC 0.76-0.78, 2 studies; AUC 0.76, 1 study; and AUC 0.79, 1 study, respectively), whereas the MTs of vastus intermedius, quadriceps femoris and transversus abdominis muscles showed a low diagnostic accuracy (AUC 0.67-0.71, 3 studies; SROC-AUC 0.64, 4 studies; and AUC 0.68, 1 study, respectively). The CSA of rectus femoris, biceps brachii muscles and gastrocnemius fascicle length also showed a moderate diagnostic accuracy (AUC 0.70-0.90, 3 studies; 0.81, 1 study; and 0.78-0.80, 1 study, respectively), whereas the echo intensity (EI) of rectus femoris, vastus intermedius, quadriceps femoris and biceps brachii muscles showed a low diagnostic accuracy (AUC 0.52-0.67, 2 studies; 0.48-0.50, 1 study; 0.43-0.49, 1 study; and 0.69, 1 study, respectively). The combination of CSA and EI of biceps brachii or rectus femoris muscles was better than either CSA or EI alone for diagnosing sarcopenia. Muscle ultrasound shows a low-to-moderate diagnostic test accuracy for sarcopenia diagnosis depending on different ultrasound parameters, measured muscles, reference standards and study populations. The combination of muscle quality indicators (e.g., EI) and muscle quantity indicators (e.g., MT) might provide better diagnostic test accuracy.

Keywords: diagnosis; meta-analysis; muscle depletion; muscle wasting; ultrasound imaging.

Conflict of interest statement

None declared.

© 2022 The Authors. Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society on Sarcopenia, Cachexia and Wasting Disorders.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis (PRISMA) flow diagram
Figure 2
Figure 2
Summary of the risk of bias of the included studies according to the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies, Version 2 (QUADAS‐2)
Figure 3
Figure 3
Summary of the muscles and ultrasound parameters measured in the included studies. CSA, cross‐sectional area; EI, echo intensity; FL, fascicle length; GM, gastrocnemius; MT, muscle thickness; QF, quadriceps femoris; SOL, soleus
Figure 4
Figure 4
Forest plots of sensitivity and specificity of different ultrasound measurements for diagnosing sarcopenia. CI, confidence interval; CSA, cross‐sectional area; GM, gastrocnemius; MT, muscle thickness; RF + VI, quadriceps femoris; RF, rectus femoris; VI, vastus intermedius
Figure 5
Figure 5
Summary receiver operating characteristic curves of different ultrasound measurements for diagnosing sarcopenia. AUC, the area under the curve; GM MT, the muscle thickness of gastrocnemius; RF MT, the muscle thickness of rectus femoris; RF + VI MT, the muscle thickness of quadriceps femoris; Se, sensitivity; Sp, specificity

References

    1. Cruz‐Jentoft AJ, Sayer AA. Sarcopenia. Lancet 2019;393:2636–2646, PMID ‐ 31171417.
    1. Petermann‐Rocha F, Balntzi V, Gray SR, Lara J, Ho FK, Pell JP, et al. Global prevalence of sarcopenia and severe sarcopenia: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 2022;13:86–99.
    1. Han A, Bokshan SL, Marcaccio SE, DePasse JM, Daniels AH. Diagnostic criteria and clinical outcomes in sarcopenia research: a literature review. J Clin Med 2018;7:70.
    1. Cruz‐Jentoft AJ, Bahat G, Bauer J, Boirie Y, Bruyère O, Cederholm T, et al. Sarcopenia: revised European consensus on definition and diagnosis. Age Ageing 2019;48:16–31.
    1. Wang JC, Wu WT, Chang KV, Chen LR, Chi SY, Kara M, et al. Ultrasound imaging for the diagnosis and evaluation of sarcopenia: an umbrella review. Life 2021;12:9.
    1. Nijholt W, Scafoglieri A, Jager‐Wittenaar H, Hobbelen JSM, van der Schans CP. The reliability and validity of ultrasound to quantify muscles in older adults: a systematic review. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 2017;8:702–712.
    1. English C, Fisher L, Thoirs K. Reliability of real‐time ultrasound for measuring skeletal muscle size in human limbs in vivo: a systematic review. Clin Rehabil 2012;26:934–944.
    1. Wang J‐C, Wu W‐T, Chang K‐V, Chen L‐R, Chi S‐Y, Kara M, et al. Ultrasound imaging for the diagnosis and evaluation of sarcopenia: an umbrella review. Life 2022;12:9.
    1. Perkisas S, Baudry S, Bauer J, Beckwée D, De Cock AM, Hobbelen H, et al. The SARCUS project: evidence‐based muscle assessment through ultrasound. Eur Geriatr Med 2019;10:157–158.
    1. Ticinesi A, Meschi T, Narici MV, Lauretani F, Maggio M. Muscle ultrasound and sarcopenia in older individuals: a clinical perspective. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2017;18:290–300.
    1. Broeck JV, Buzzatti L, Jager‐Wittenaar H, Perkisas S, Scafoglieri A. The validity of ultrasound‐derived equation models to predict whole‐body muscle mass: a systematic review. Clin Nutrition Espen 2021;46:133–141.
    1. Perkisas S, Bastijns S, Baudry S, Bauer J, Beaudart C, Beckwée D, et al. Application of ultrasound for muscle assessment in sarcopenia: 2020 SARCUS update. Eur Geriatr Med 2021;12:45–59.
    1. Janczyk EM, Champigny N, Michel E, Raffaelli C, Annweiler C, Zory R, et al. Sonoelastography to assess muscular stiffness among older adults and its use for the diagnosis of sarcopenia: a systematic review. Ultraschall Der Medizin ‐ European J Ultrasound 2020;doi: PMID ‐ 33187010;42:634–642.
    1. Perkisas S, Baudry S, Bauer J, Beckwée D, de Cock AM, Hobbelen H, et al. Application of ultrasound for muscle assessment in sarcopenia: towards standardized measurements. Eur Geriatr Med 2018;9:739–757.
    1. Salameh JP, Bossuyt PM, McGrath TA, Thombs BD, Hyde CJ, Macaskill P, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta‐analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies (PRISMA‐DTA): explanation, elaboration, and checklist. BMJ 2020;370:m2632.
    1. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71.
    1. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, et al. QUADAS‐2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011;155:529–536.
    1. Macaskill P, Gatsonis C, Deeks JJ, Harbord RM, Takwoingi Y. Chapter 10: analysing and presenting results. In Deeks JJ, Bossuyt PM, Gatsonis C, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2013.
    1. Okeh UM, Okoro CN. Evaluating measures of indicators of diagnostic test performance: fundamental meanings and formulars. J Biometrics Biostat 2012;3:2.
    1. Review Manager (RevMan). The Cochrane Collaboration; 2020.
    1. Freeman SC, Kerby CR, Patel A, Cooper NJ, Quinn T, Sutton AJ. Development of an interactive web‐based tool to conduct and interrogate meta‐analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies: MetaDTA. BMC Med Res Methodol 2019;19:1–11.
    1. Patel A, Cooper N, Freeman S, Sutton A. Graphical enhancements to summary receiver operating characteristic plots to facilitate the analysis and reporting of meta‐analysis of diagnostic test accuracy data. Res Synth Methods 2021;12:34–44.
    1. Sengul Aycicek G, Ozsurekci C, Caliskan H, Kizilarslanoglu MC, Tuna Dogrul R, Balci C, et al. Ultrasonography versus bioelectrical impedance analysis: which predicts muscle strength better? Acta Clin Belg 2021;76:204–208.
    1. Barotsis N, Galata A, Hadjiconstanti A, Panayiotakis G. The ultrasonographic measurement of muscle thickness in sarcopenia. A prediction study. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2020;56:427–437.
    1. Kuyumcu ME, Halil M, Kara Ö, Çuni B, Çağlayan G, Güven S, et al. Ultrasonographic evaluation of the calf muscle mass and architecture in elderly patients with and without sarcopenia. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2016;65:218–224.
    1. Sari A, Esme M, Aycicek GS, Armagan B, Kilic L, Ertenli AI, et al. Evaluating skeletal muscle mass with ultrasound in patients with systemic sclerosis. Nutrition 2021;84:110999.
    1. Yuguchi S, Asahi R, Kamo T, Azami M, Ogihara H. Gastrocnemius thickness by ultrasonography indicates the low skeletal muscle mass in Japanese elderly people. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2020;90:104093.
    1. Isaka M, Sugimoto K, Yasunobe Y, Akasaka H, Fujimoto T, Kurinami H, et al. The usefulness of an alternative diagnostic method for sarcopenia using thickness and echo intensity of lower leg muscles in older males. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2019;20:1185.e1–1185.e8.
    1. Wang J, Hu Y, Tian G. Ultrasound measurements of gastrocnemius muscle thickness in older people with sarcopenia. Clin Interv Aging 2018;13:2193–2199.
    1. Fukumoto Y, Ikezoe T, Taniguchi M, Yamada Y, Sawano S, Minani S, et al. Cut‐off values for lower limb muscle thickness to detect low muscle mass for sarcopenia in older adults. Clin Interv Aging 2021;16:1215–1222.
    1. Matsuzawa R, Yamamoto S, Suzuki Y, Imamura K, Harada M, Matsunaga A, et al. The clinical applicability of ultrasound technique for diagnosis of sarcopenia in hemodialysis patients. Clin Nutr 2021;40:1161–1167.
    1. Wilkinson TJ, Gore EF, Vadaszy N, Nixon DG, Watson EL, Smith AC. Utility of ultrasound as a valid and accurate diagnostic tool for sarcopenia: sex‐specific cutoff values in chronic kidney disease. J Ultrasound Med 2021;40:457–467.
    1. Sato Y, Shiraishi H, Nakanishi N, Zen K, Nakamura T, Yamano T, et al. Clinical significance of rectus femoris diameter in heart failure patients. Heart Vessels 2020;35:672–680.
    1. Rustani K, Kundisova L, Capecchi PL, Nante N, Bicchi M. Ultrasound measurement of rectus femoris muscle thickness as a quick screening test for sarcopenia assessment. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2019;83:151–154.
    1. Hida T, Ando K, Kobayashi K, Ito K, Tsushima M, Kobayakawa T, et al. Ultrasound measurement of thigh muscle thickness for assessment of sarcopenia. Nagoya J Med Sci 2018;80:519.
    1. Tada M, Yamada Y, Mandai K, Hidaka N. Screening for sarcopenia and obesity by measuring thigh muscle and fat thickness by ultrasound in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Osteop Sarcop 2021;7:81–87.
    1. Yoshida T, Kumon Y. Usefulness of Ultrasound Assessment of Sarcopenia in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis. 111 River St, Hoboken 07030‐5774, NJ, USA: Wiley; 2020.
    1. Neira Álvarez M, Vázquez Ronda MA, Soler Rangel L, Thuissard‐Vasallo I, Andreu‐Vazquez C, Martinez Martin P, et al. Muscle assessment by ultrasonography: agreement with dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry (DXA) and relationship with physical performance. J Nutr Health Aging 2021;25:956–963.
    1. Yamada M, Kimura Y, Ishiyama D, Nishio N, Abe Y, Kakehi T, et al. Differential characteristics of skeletal muscle in community‐dwelling older adults. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2017;18:807.e9–807.e16.
    1. Wilson C, Kerr D, Noel‐Storr A, Quinn TJ. Associations with publication and assessing publication bias in dementia diagnostic test accuracy studies. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2015;30:1250–1256.
    1. van Enst WA, Ochodo E, Scholten RJ, Hooft L, Leeflang MM. Investigation of publication bias in meta‐analyses of diagnostic test accuracy: a meta‐epidemiological study. BMC Med Res Methodol 2014;14:70.
    1. Giovannini S, Brau F, Forino R, Berti A, D'Ignazio F, Loreti C, et al. Sarcopenia: diagnosis and management, state of the art and contribution of ultrasound. J Clin Med 2021;10:5552.
    1. Kara M, Kaymak B, Frontera W, Ata AM, Ricci V, Ekiz T, et al. Diagnosing sarcopenia: functional perspectives and a new algorithm from ISarcoPRM. J Rehabil Med 2021;53:jrm00209.
    1. Barbat‐Artigas S, Rolland Y, Vellas B, Aubertin‐Leheudre M. Muscle quantity is not synonymous with muscle quality. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2013;14:852.e1–852.e7.
    1. McGregor RA, Cameron‐Smith D, Poppitt SD. It is not just muscle mass: a review of muscle quality, composition and metabolism during ageing as determinants of muscle function and mobility in later life. Longev Healthspan 2014;3:9.
    1. Narici M, McPhee J, Conte M, Franchi MV, Mitchell K, Tagliaferri S, et al. Age‐related alterations in muscle architecture are a signature of sarcopenia: the ultrasound sarcopenia index. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 2021;12:973–982.
    1. Deng M, Zhou X, Li Y, Yin Y, Liang C, Zhang Q, et al. Ultrasonic elastography of the rectus femoris, a potential tool to predict sarcopenia in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Front Physiol 2022;12:783421, PMID ‐ 35069243.
    1. Valera‐Calero JA, Ojedo‐Martin C, Fernandez‐de‐Las‐Penas C, Cleland JA, Arias‐Buria JL, Hervas‐Perez JP. Reliability and validity of panoramic ultrasound imaging for evaluating muscular quality and morphology: a systematic review. Ultrasound Med Biol 2021;47:185–200.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnieren