A 32-year-old man presented to the emergency department with severe right lower limb pain and swelling of three days' duration. He had multiple prior admissions for recurrent seizures and suicide attempts. Markedly elevated serum creatine kinase levels and urine myoglobinuria were consistent with a diagnosis of rhabdomyolysis. Initial magnetic resonance imaging of the right lower limb revealed diffuse muscle oedema and features of myositis in the gluteal muscles and the adductor, anterior and posterior compartments of the thigh. Follow-up magnetic resonance imaging performed 11 days later showed interval development of areas of myonecrosis and haemorrhage. The causes, clinical presentation and imaging features of rhabdomyolysis are discussed.

Biomarkers/blood* ; COVID-19/diagnosis* ; Chemokine CXCL10/blood* ; Humans ; Lung Diseases/virology* ; Severity of Illness Index

A 39-year-old man presented with acute left knee pain and swelling. There was limitation of movement of the knee joint. His past medical history was significant for gout. Computed radiography showed bony erosions that were not typical of chronic tophaceous gout. Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging showed focal deposits within the knee joint, which demonstrated isointense signal to muscle on T1-weighted sequence and intermediate signal on proton density (PD) and PD fat-saturated sequences. There was extensive, similar signal abnormality in the cruciate ligaments, popliteus tendon and lateral meniscus. These findings were in keeping with an intra-articular manifestation of chronic tophaceous gout. The clinical presentation and imaging features are herein discussed, with an emphasis on MR imaging.

Purpose: Diagnosing sarcopenia necessitates the measurement of skeletal muscle mass. However, guidelines lack a standardized imaging modality with thresholds validated among Asians. This systematic review compared ultrasonography, computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA)/body composition monitoring in the detection of sarcopenia within Asian populations. Methods: PubMed and Embase were systematically searched for studies analyzing ultrasonography, CT, MRI, and BIA in diagnosing sarcopenia among Asians. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Results: Pooled findings from 21,598 patients across 25 studies were examined. In receiver operating characteristic analysis, ultrasound displayed a pooled mean area under the curve (AUC) of 0.767 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.709–0.806), with mean sensitivity of 81.1% (95% CI, 0.744–0.846) and specificity of 73.1% (95% CI, 0.648–0.774), for detecting sarcopenia in Asian populations. CT exhibited an AUC of 0.720 (sensitivity, 54.0%; specificity, 92.0%). MRI demonstrated an AUC of 0.839 (sensitivity, 67.0%; specificity, 66.0%). BIA displayed an AUC of 0.905 (95% CI, 0.842–0.968), 80.7% sensitivity (95% CI, 0.129–0.679), and 82.4% specificity (95% CI, 0.191–0.633). Conclusion Various modalities aid in diagnosing sarcopenia, and selection should be individualized. Although only BIA and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry are recommended by the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia and the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People, ultrasound imaging may hold diagnostic value for sarcopenia in the Asian population. In certain groups, diagnostic use of CT and MRI is warranted. Future research can standardize and validate modality-specific thresholds and protocols within Asian populations.

Purpose: Diagnosing sarcopenia necessitates the measurement of skeletal muscle mass. However, guidelines lack a standardized imaging modality with thresholds validated among Asians. This systematic review compared ultrasonography, computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA)/body composition monitoring in the detection of sarcopenia within Asian populations. Methods: PubMed and Embase were systematically searched for studies analyzing ultrasonography, CT, MRI, and BIA in diagnosing sarcopenia among Asians. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Results: Pooled findings from 21,598 patients across 25 studies were examined. In receiver operating characteristic analysis, ultrasound displayed a pooled mean area under the curve (AUC) of 0.767 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.709–0.806), with mean sensitivity of 81.1% (95% CI, 0.744–0.846) and specificity of 73.1% (95% CI, 0.648–0.774), for detecting sarcopenia in Asian populations. CT exhibited an AUC of 0.720 (sensitivity, 54.0%; specificity, 92.0%). MRI demonstrated an AUC of 0.839 (sensitivity, 67.0%; specificity, 66.0%). BIA displayed an AUC of 0.905 (95% CI, 0.842–0.968), 80.7% sensitivity (95% CI, 0.129–0.679), and 82.4% specificity (95% CI, 0.191–0.633). Conclusion Various modalities aid in diagnosing sarcopenia, and selection should be individualized. Although only BIA and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry are recommended by the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia and the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People, ultrasound imaging may hold diagnostic value for sarcopenia in the Asian population. In certain groups, diagnostic use of CT and MRI is warranted. Future research can standardize and validate modality-specific thresholds and protocols within Asian populations.

Purpose: Diagnosing sarcopenia necessitates the measurement of skeletal muscle mass. However, guidelines lack a standardized imaging modality with thresholds validated among Asians. This systematic review compared ultrasonography, computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA)/body composition monitoring in the detection of sarcopenia within Asian populations. Methods: PubMed and Embase were systematically searched for studies analyzing ultrasonography, CT, MRI, and BIA in diagnosing sarcopenia among Asians. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Results: Pooled findings from 21,598 patients across 25 studies were examined. In receiver operating characteristic analysis, ultrasound displayed a pooled mean area under the curve (AUC) of 0.767 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.709–0.806), with mean sensitivity of 81.1% (95% CI, 0.744–0.846) and specificity of 73.1% (95% CI, 0.648–0.774), for detecting sarcopenia in Asian populations. CT exhibited an AUC of 0.720 (sensitivity, 54.0%; specificity, 92.0%). MRI demonstrated an AUC of 0.839 (sensitivity, 67.0%; specificity, 66.0%). BIA displayed an AUC of 0.905 (95% CI, 0.842–0.968), 80.7% sensitivity (95% CI, 0.129–0.679), and 82.4% specificity (95% CI, 0.191–0.633). Conclusion Various modalities aid in diagnosing sarcopenia, and selection should be individualized. Although only BIA and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry are recommended by the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia and the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People, ultrasound imaging may hold diagnostic value for sarcopenia in the Asian population. In certain groups, diagnostic use of CT and MRI is warranted. Future research can standardize and validate modality-specific thresholds and protocols within Asian populations.

Purpose: Diagnosing sarcopenia necessitates the measurement of skeletal muscle mass. However, guidelines lack a standardized imaging modality with thresholds validated among Asians. This systematic review compared ultrasonography, computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA)/body composition monitoring in the detection of sarcopenia within Asian populations. Methods: PubMed and Embase were systematically searched for studies analyzing ultrasonography, CT, MRI, and BIA in diagnosing sarcopenia among Asians. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Results: Pooled findings from 21,598 patients across 25 studies were examined. In receiver operating characteristic analysis, ultrasound displayed a pooled mean area under the curve (AUC) of 0.767 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.709–0.806), with mean sensitivity of 81.1% (95% CI, 0.744–0.846) and specificity of 73.1% (95% CI, 0.648–0.774), for detecting sarcopenia in Asian populations. CT exhibited an AUC of 0.720 (sensitivity, 54.0%; specificity, 92.0%). MRI demonstrated an AUC of 0.839 (sensitivity, 67.0%; specificity, 66.0%). BIA displayed an AUC of 0.905 (95% CI, 0.842–0.968), 80.7% sensitivity (95% CI, 0.129–0.679), and 82.4% specificity (95% CI, 0.191–0.633). Conclusion Various modalities aid in diagnosing sarcopenia, and selection should be individualized. Although only BIA and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry are recommended by the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia and the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People, ultrasound imaging may hold diagnostic value for sarcopenia in the Asian population. In certain groups, diagnostic use of CT and MRI is warranted. Future research can standardize and validate modality-specific thresholds and protocols within Asian populations.

Purpose: Diagnosing sarcopenia necessitates the measurement of skeletal muscle mass. However, guidelines lack a standardized imaging modality with thresholds validated among Asians. This systematic review compared ultrasonography, computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA)/body composition monitoring in the detection of sarcopenia within Asian populations. Methods: PubMed and Embase were systematically searched for studies analyzing ultrasonography, CT, MRI, and BIA in diagnosing sarcopenia among Asians. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Results: Pooled findings from 21,598 patients across 25 studies were examined. In receiver operating characteristic analysis, ultrasound displayed a pooled mean area under the curve (AUC) of 0.767 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.709–0.806), with mean sensitivity of 81.1% (95% CI, 0.744–0.846) and specificity of 73.1% (95% CI, 0.648–0.774), for detecting sarcopenia in Asian populations. CT exhibited an AUC of 0.720 (sensitivity, 54.0%; specificity, 92.0%). MRI demonstrated an AUC of 0.839 (sensitivity, 67.0%; specificity, 66.0%). BIA displayed an AUC of 0.905 (95% CI, 0.842–0.968), 80.7% sensitivity (95% CI, 0.129–0.679), and 82.4% specificity (95% CI, 0.191–0.633). Conclusion Various modalities aid in diagnosing sarcopenia, and selection should be individualized. Although only BIA and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry are recommended by the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia and the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People, ultrasound imaging may hold diagnostic value for sarcopenia in the Asian population. In certain groups, diagnostic use of CT and MRI is warranted. Future research can standardize and validate modality-specific thresholds and protocols within Asian populations.