Reply to Comment on “Prevalence of dynapenia and presarcopenia related to aging in adult community‐dwelling Mexicans using two different cut‐off points”

  • Wendy D. Rodríguez-García
  • Lilia Castillo-Martínez
Letter to the editor
  • 22 Downloads

The authors sincerely appreciate Dr. Safer´s letter, his interest in our work and comments.

Safer U et al. exposes that in our study we evaluated muscle mass with BIA, an instrument with controversy in its validity; nevertheless, there is evidence supporting the use of BIA in epidemiological studies, considering as a valid method with a small error (5–10%) [1]. Moreover, we used prediction equations to estimate muscle mass as EWGSOP consensus proposed and to determine the cutoff points for the diagnosis of low muscle mass in our country [2].

In addition, Safer et al. emphasize the importance of pretest preparation for BIA; in our paper, we specify that all the participants were evaluated using the standard technic according to Kyle et al. [3]; also we based our protocol using the specifications in clinical practice [4].

Finally, we agree on the importance of specifying the criteria for performing the impedance in clinical practice as well as on the use of specific cutoff points for the population studied; this last point considered an aim of our published article [5].

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participant performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study, informed consent is not required.

References

  1. 1.
    Janssen I, Heymsfield SB, Baumgartner RN, Ross R, Vetrano DL, Landi F et al (2000) Estimation of skeletal muscle mass by bioelectrical impedance analysis. J Appl Physiol 89:465–471CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Baeyens JP, Bauer JM, Boirie Y, Cederholm T, Landi F et al (2010) Sarcopenia: European consensus on definition and diagnosis: report of the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in older people. Age Ageing 39(4):412–423CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kyle UG, Bosaeus I, De Lorenzo AD, Deurenberg P, Elia M, Gómez JM, et al (2004) Bioelectrical impedance analysis-part I: review of principles and methods. Clin Nutr 23(5):1226–1243CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kyle UG, Bosaeus I, De Lorenzo AD, Deurenberg P, Elia M, Manuel Gómez J et al. (2004) Bioelectrical impedance analysis-part II: utilization in clinical practice. Clin Nutr 23(6):1430–1453CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rodríguez-García WD, Castañeda L, Vaquero-Barbosa N, Mendoza-Núñez VM, Orea-Tejeda A, Perkisas S, et al. (2018) Prevalence of dynapenia and presarcopenia related to aging in adult community-dwelling Mexicans using two different cut-off points. Eur Geriatr Med (in press)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© European Geriatric Medicine Society 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centro Regional de Educación Superior, Campus Zona NorteUniversidad Autónoma de GuerreroChilpancingoMexico
  2. 2.Clinical Nutrition DepartmentInstituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador ZubiránMexico CityMexico

Personalised recommendations