“…US, DXA, and MRI have their own perks; nevertheless, US could become a gold standard for diagnosis and follow-up in sarcopenia due to its low cost and almost universal use in clinical practice. Tool | Advantages | Disadvantages |
Biopsy [ 131 , 155 , 156 ] | Morphological, cellular, and biochemical features in muscle Biobanking practices, tissue manipulation, and individual patient characterization | Invasive technique Contraindicated in high-risk complication patients Patient discomfort Possible poor sample size |
DXA [ 134 , 135 ] | Relatively cheap, compared with CT or MRI Rapid technique, noninvasive Allows the visualization of different body compartments (bone or soft tissue) Lower radiation exposure compared to other tools such as CT | Hydration and tissue thickness can alter muscle measurement Even low-radiation exposure needs to be considered No portability Variations in muscle mass due to mathematical equations and algorithms |
MRI [ 157 , 158 , 159 ] | Gold standard for imaging sarcopenia No ionizing irradiation Capable of analyzing images after scanning DNP variation can detect the REDOX state in muscle | High cost Zero portability and not always available in hospitals and clinics Restricted accessibility for some people, such as frail individuals or individuals with metal/electronic devices implanted Image interpretation by a health professional |
Ultrasound [ 128 , 129 , 142 , 145 , 146 , 148 , 160 ] | Non invasive A set of US parameters can be used as biomarkers for sarcopenia No ionizing irradiation Low cost ... |
…”