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.