Christian Rodriguez

Quantifying skeletal muscle size is necessary to identify those at risk for conditions that increase frailty, morbidity, and mortality, as well as decrease quality of life. Although muscle strength, muscle quality, and physical performance have been suggested as important assessments in the screening, prevention, and management of sarcopenic and cachexic individuals, skeletal muscle size is still a critical objective marker. Several techniques exist for estimating skeletal muscle size; however, each technique presents with unique characteristics regarding simplicity/complexity, cost, radiation dose, accessibility, and portability that are important factors for assessors to consider before applying these modalities in practice. This narrative review presents a discussion centred on the theory and applications of current non‐invasive techniques for estimating skeletal muscle size in diverse populations. Common instruments for skeletal muscle assessment include imaging techniques such as computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, peripheral quantitative computed tomography, dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry, and Brightness‐mode ultrasound, and non‐imaging techniques like bioelectrical impedance analysis and anthropometry. Skeletal muscle size can be acquired from these methods using whole‐body and/or regional assessments, as well as prediction equations. Notable concerns when conducting assessments include the absence of standardised image acquisition/processing protocols and the variation in cut‐off thresholds used to define low skeletal muscle size by clinicians and researchers, which could affect the accuracy and prevalence of diagnoses. Given the importance of evaluating skeletal muscle size, it is imperative practitioners are informed of each technique and their respective strengths and weaknesses.