ReviewCancers2025
Is Nutritional Ultrasound as Useful and Accurate as Computed Tomography to Assess Sarcopenia in Cancer Patients? A Systematic Review.
Review in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Sarcopenia in breast cancer: prognostic values and emerging therapeutic strategies.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSarcopenia assessment provides significant prognostic information that outperforms body mass index and will help to guide interventions to optimize survival outcomes in cancer patients. Computed tomography (CT) is an opportunistic tool used for the assessment of low muscle mass criteria of sarcopenia in cancer patients, while nutritional ultrasound (NU) cutoff points for sarcopenia have been recently proposed. The objective of the present review is to evaluate if NU has a comparable accuracy as CT for the assessment of sarcopenia in cancer patients and could be useful in clinical setting.
methodsSystematic review was registered in Open Science Framework. PubMed and Scopus databases were searched in May and updated in August 2025. All published studies in which patients were evaluated using only one of the previously mentioned modalities, or those involving subjects with non-cancer-related pathologies, were excluded. Two reviewers independently evaluated the risk of bias of selected studies with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Quality Assessment Tools, and results are presented following the PRISMA 2020 model for systematic reviews.
resultsSix studies comprising a total of 1011 patients (57.27% male) were evaluated. Accuracy, variability, and agreement between NU and CT are presented.
conclusionsMain limitations of the evidence include the heterogeneity among studies and their risk of bias. Nevertheless, NU can be a useful tool for sarcopenia diagnosis and can provide a closer and a more flexible follow-up in cancer patients than CT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.