Fanny Buckinx , 1 , Francesco Landi 2 , Matteo Cesari 3 , 4 , Roger A. Fielding 5 , Marjolein Visser 6 , 7 , Klaus Engelke 8 , Stefania Maggi 9 , Elaine Dennison 10 , Nasser M. Al‐Daghri 11 , Sophie Allepaerts 12 , Jurgen Bauer 13 , Ivan Bautmans 14 , Maria Luisa Brandi 15 , Olivier Bruyère 1 , Tommy Cederholm 16 , Francesca Cerreta 16 , Antonio Cherubini 17 , Cyrus Cooper 10 , 18 , Alphonso Cruz‐Jentoft 19 , Eugene McCloskey 20 , 21 , Bess Dawson‐Hughes 22 , Jean‐Marc Kaufman 23 , Andrea Laslop 24 , Jean Petermans 12 , Jean‐Yves Reginster 1 , René Rizzoli 25 , Sian Robinson 10 , 26 , Yves Rolland 27 , Ricardo Rueda 28 , Bruno Vellas 27 , John A. Kanis 29
19 January 2018
All proposed definitions of sarcopenia include the measurement of muscle mass, but the techniques and threshold values used vary. Indeed, the literature does not establish consensus on the best technique for measuring lean body mass. Thus, the objective measurement of sarcopenia is hampered by limitations intrinsic to assessment tools. The aim of this study was to review the methods to assess muscle mass and to reach consensus on the development of a reference standard.
Literature reviews were performed by members of the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis working group on frailty and sarcopenia. Face‐to‐face meetings were organized for the whole group to make amendments and discuss further recommendations.
A wide range of techniques can be used to assess muscle mass. Cost, availability, and ease of use can determine whether the techniques are better suited to clinical practice or are more useful for research. No one technique subserves all requirements but dual energy X‐ray absorptiometry could be considered as a reference standard (but not a gold standard) for measuring muscle lean body mass.