Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis Versus Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry for Sarcopenia Assessment in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

preprint OA: closed CC-BY-4.0

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Sarcopenia affects approximately 10-27% of adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), roughly double the prevalence in age-matched non-diabetic populations. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the consensus reference method for quantifying muscle mass, but its cost, radiation exposure, and infrastructure requirements limit its routine clinical use. Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) is portable, inexpensive, and radiation-free. However, T2DM-associated alterations in tissue hydration, extracellular water distribution, and electrical conductivity may compromise BIA accuracy. No disease-specific systematic review has evaluated whether BIA constitutes a viable alternative to DXA for sarcopenia assessment in T2DM. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether BIA is a viable alternative to DXA for (1) muscle mass and body composition estimation, (2) sarcopenia classification and prevalence estimation, and (3) sarcopenia screening in adults with T2DM, using a three-tier synthesis framework. METHODS: Five electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL) will be searched from inception without language restrictions, supplemented by citation searching. Studies comparing BIA with DXA in adults with confirmed T2DM reporting any agreement statistic or sarcopenia prevalence are eligible. Two reviewers will independently screen records, extract data, and assess risk of bias using QUADAS-C. Tier 1 analyses will pool ICC and Bland-Altman bias using random-effects models and Fisher z-transformation. Tier 2 will pool DXA-based sarcopenia prevalence (logit scale) and BIA-DXA risk difference. Tier 3 will narratively synthesise sensitivity, specificity, and AUC. GRADE will be applied to assess the certainty of evidence. DISSEMINATION: Findings will be published in a Scopus-indexed journal and presented at a reputable conference.
Full text 621 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
There is a newer version available for this {{ publicationType }}. View latest version {{ publication.field_name }} {{ publication.subfield_name }} Copyright: © {{ publicationYear }} {{ publication.presentation_authors[0].full_name + (publication.presentation_authors.length > 1 ? ' et al' : '') }}. This is an open access publication distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0 License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Check the {{ publicationType | capitalize }} Source for copyright and license information. Listen on

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2026) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-05-22T02:00:06.705733+00:00
License: CC-BY-4.0