Objectives To assess the interreader and test-retest reliability of magnetization transfer imaging (MTI) and T2 relaxometry in sciatic nerve MR neurography (MRN). Materials and methods In this prospective study, 21 healthy volunteers were examined three times on separate days by a standardized MRN protocol at 3 Tesla, consisting of an MTI sequence, a multi-echo T2 relaxometry sequence, and a high-resolution T2-weighted sequence. Magnetization transfer ratio (MTR), T2 relaxation time, and proton spin density (PSD) of the sciatic nerve were assessed by two independent observers, and both interreader and test-retest reliability for all readout parameters were reported by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and standard error of measurement (SEM). Results For the sciatic nerve, overall mean ± standard deviation MTR was 26.75 ± 3.5%, T2 was 64.54 ± 8.2 ms, and PSD was 340.93 ± 78.8. ICCs ranged between 0.81 (MTR) and 0.94 (PSD) for interreader reliability and between 0.75 (MTR) and 0.94 (PSD) for test-retest reliability. SEM for interreader reliability was 1.7% for MTR, 2.67 ms for T2, and 21.3 for PSD. SEM for test-retest reliability was 1.7% for MTR, 2.66 ms for T2, and 20.1 for PSD. Conclusions MTI and T2 relaxometry of the sciatic nerve are reliable and reproducible. The values of measurement imprecision reported here may serve as a guide for correct interpretation of quantitative MRN biomarkers in future studies. Key Points • Magnetization transfer imaging (MTI) and T2 relaxometry of the sciatic nerve are reliable and reproducible. • The imprecision that is unavoidably associated with different scans or different readers can be estimated by the here presented SEM values for the biomarkers T2, PSD, and MTR. • These values may serve as a guide for correct interpretation of quantitative MRN biomarkers in future studies and possible clinical applications.

No abstract

Objective To evaluate the reliability and validity of a standardized ultrasound examination protocol for measuring vastus lateralis muscle size. Design Prospective cohort study. Subjects Sixteen staff members of the university hospital of Heidelberg. Methods Muscle thickness, cross-sectional area and subcutaneous adipose tissue thickness were measurxsed at 3 standardized sites on the right and left vastus lateralis muscle. Ultrasound measurements were collected by 2 independent investigators on 2 different days and compared with magnetic resonance imaging measurements. Results Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for intra- and inter-rater reliability showed very good closeness of agreement for all parameters (ICC = 0.929–0.994, p < 0.001). Muscle thickness and subcutaneous adipose tissue thickness ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging measurements revealed good to very good closeness of agreement (ICC = 0.835–0.969, p < 0.001), whereas cross-sectional area showed only average closeness of agreement (ICC = 0.727, p < 0.001). A strong predictive positive correlation for ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging-based measurements of cross-sectional area was found (R ² = 0.793, p < 0.001). Conclusion By standardization of an examination protocol, quantitative vastus lateralis muscle ultrasound proved to be a reliable method for assessing vastus lateralis muscle size. Furthermore, this protocol is valid for measuring muscle thickness and subcutaneous adipose tissue thickness, although there seems to be a systematic underestimation of cross-sectional area depending on subcutaneous adipose tissue thickness. LAY ABSTRACT The quantification of muscle mass is crucial for diagnosis and monitoring of muscle atrophy caused by inactivity or in the context of diseases, and could also be used for monitoring the development of muscle hypertrophy during resistance training. Application of a standardized examination protocol for quantitative vastus lateralis muscle ultrasound proved to be a reliable method for assessing vastus lateralis muscle size in people with varying body weight and body composition, respectively. In this regard, it could be considered an alternative examination tool to time- and cost-consuming gold-standard magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which is seldom readily available in clinical practice. However, compared with MRI measurements, muscle cross-sectional area measured using ultrasound seems to be systematically underestimated, depending on subcutaneous adipose tissue thickness.