No abstract

The aim of the present study was to determine the validity of ultrasound (US) imaging versus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for measuring anterior thigh muscle, subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT), and fascia thickness. Twenty healthy, moderately active participants (aged 49.1 ± 9.74 [36–64] years), underwent imaging of the anterior thigh, using ultrasound and MRI modalities on the same day. Images were analyzed offline to assess the level of agreement between US and MRI measurements. Pearson’s correlation coefficient showed an excellent relationship between US imaging and MRI for measuring muscle (r = 0.99, p < 0.01), SAT (r = 0.99, p < 0.01), and non-contractile tissue (SAT combined with perimuscular fascia) thickness (r = 0.99, p < 0.01). Perimuscular fascia thickness measurement showed a poor correlation between modalities (r = 0.39, p < 0.01). Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC3,1) also showed excellent correlation of the measurements with ICC = 0.99 for muscle thickness, SAT, and non-contractile tissue, but not for perimuscular fascia, which showed poor agreement ICC = 0.36. Bland and Altman plots demonstrated excellent agreement between US imaging and MRI measurements. Criterion validity was demonstrated for US imaging against MRI, for measuring thickness of muscle and SAT, but not perimuscular fascia alone on the anterior thigh. The US imaging technique is therefore applicable for research and clinical purposes for muscle and SAT.

Understanding the possible triggers in TTH, muscle hyperalgesia, and widespread pain sensitization, may help to develop better management regimes and possibly prevent TTH from developing into more chronic conditions. Currently, there is a striking difference between the clinical observational studies favoring the role of muscle triggers in TTH and the intervention studies generally not supporting the role of muscle triggers in TTH.

Inter-rater and intra-rater reliability of ultrasound imaging for measuring quadriceps muscle and non-contractile tissue thickness of the anterior.

Background Ultrasound (US) imaging technique is widely used in research and clinical settings to assess the morphology and morphometry of neuromusculoskeletal structures. The technique has reported validity and reliability in measuring the size of various muscles under controlled conditions. The aim of the present study was to assess anterior thigh thickness using US imaging, in a healthy cohort of middle‐aged older adults. Methods Participants included 17 healthy older adults involved in regular moderate‐vigorous activities (age range 39–66 years). US imaging scans of the anterior thighs 2 years since baseline measurements were performed. Images were analysed offline to compare US imaging measurements of muscle thickness and subcutaneous fat (SF) of the anterior thigh taken at baseline and after 2 years. Results There was no significant difference between muscle thickness measurements taken at baseline and after 2 years (mean, standard deviation; baseline = 2.80 ± 0.71 cm; follow‐up = 2.77 ± 0.72 cm, P = 0.33). There was also no significant change in SF thickness (baseline = 1.04 ± 0.41 cm; follow‐up = 1.06 ± 0.40, P = 0.33). Conclusions The results show that there was no decline in anterior thigh muscle thickness or increase in SF in the healthy cohort studied using US imaging over a 2 year period. These findings demonstrate the robustness of US imaging measurements over time.

No abstract

BackgroundUltrasound (US) imaging technique is widely used in research and clinical settings to assess the morphology and morphometry of neuromusculoskeletal structures. The technique has reported validity and reliability in measuring the size of various muscles under controlled conditions. The aim of the present study was to assess anterior thigh thickness using US imaging, in a healthy cohort of middle‐aged older adults.MethodsParticipants included 17 healthy older adults involved in regular moderate‐vigorous activities (age range 39–66 years). US imaging scans of the anterior thighs 2 years since baseline measurements were performed. Images were analysed offline to compare US imaging measurements of muscle thickness and subcutaneous fat (SF) of the anterior thigh taken at baseline and after 2 years.ResultsThere was no significant difference between muscle thickness measurements taken at baseline and after 2 years (mean, standard deviation; baseline = 2.80 ± 0.71 cm; follow‐up = 2.77 ± 0.72 cm, P = 0.33). There was also no significant change in SF thickness (baseline = 1.04 ± 0.41 cm; follow‐up = 1.06 ± 0.40, P = 0.33).ConclusionsThe results show that there was no decline in anterior thigh muscle thickness or increase in SF in the healthy cohort studied using US imaging over a 2 year period. These findings demonstrate the robustness of US imaging measurements over time.

No abstract