SynthesisFrontiers in endocrinology2025
Fatty infiltration and cross-sectional area as indicators of muscle mass in osteoporosis: a meta-regression study.
Synthesis in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Paraspinal muscle morphology, including cross-sectional area (CSA) and fatty infiltration (FI), has been increasingly recognized as a potential imaging-based indicator of osteoporosis. However, the extent to which these muscle parameters differ across osteoporosis, osteopenia, and healthy populations remains unclear. Methods: A systematic meta-analysis was conducted based on 14 studies published from inception to January 25, 2025, comprising 125 effect size estimates related to CSA and FI across key paraspinal muscles. Pooled standardized mean differences (SMDs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Subgroup analyses were stratified by muscle group and diagnostic comparison. Three-level meta-regression models were implemented to examine the influence of study-level moderators, including age, sex, measurement level and comparison category. Results: A significant decrease in CSA was observed only in osteoporotic patients compared with controls, and multiple muscle groups were evaluated. In contrast, CSA differences in osteopenia were less consistent and appeared to vary by muscle type. FI demonstrated greater sensitivity across diagnostic comparisons, with significant increases observed in both osteopenia and osteo- porotic groups relative to controls, especially in the multifidus and erector spinae. Meta-regression identified age as a significant moderator, indicating that morphological differences diminish with increasing age. Both CSA and FI are associated with musculoskeletal deterioration in osteoporosis, with FI suggested to be relatively more sensitive and potentially capable of detecting early pathological changes during the osteopenia stage. However, when examined across specific measurement approaches for CSA and FI, the apparent advantage of FI was attenuated, and no clear difference in sensitivity was identified. The psoas major showed inconsistent findings across studies, likely due to its lower baseline fat content and lower responsiveness to aging. Conclusion: Both CSA and FI are associated with musculoskeletal deterioration in osteoporosis, with FI emerging as a more sensitive marker, potentially capable of detecting early pathological changes during the osteopenia stage. These findings highlight the value of paraspinal muscle assessments in osteoporosis research and clinical evaluation. Further studies are warranted to standardize measurement protocols and evaluate the integration of muscle morphology into imaging-based risk prediction models. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251026322, identifier CRD420251026322.
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.