Reproducibility of ultrasound-derived muscle thickness and echo-intensity for the entire quadriceps femoris muscle

Santos, Rodrigo de Paula; Armada-da-Silva, Paulo

doi:10.1016/j.radi.2017.03.011

Cited by 43 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…medial gastrocnemius, quadriceps, hamstrings, and biceps brachii), with different populations (men or women, young or elderly, and healthy or unhealthy) and in different positions (sitting or standing). 4,[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] However, the results are not consistent amongst them, with reported reliabilities changing considerably from one study to another, with ICC values ranging between 0.31 and 0.96. 4,[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] Studies that evaluate inter-rater and inter-analyst reliability are scarce in the literature.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 73%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Echo intensity reliability between two rectus femoris probe sites

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction The ultrasound technique has been extensively used to measure echo intensity, with the goal of measuring muscle quality, muscle damage, or to detect neuromuscular disorders. However, it is not clear how reliable the technique is when comparing different days, raters, and analysts, or if the reliability is affected by the muscle site where the image is obtained from. The goal of this study was to compare the intra-rater, inter-rater, and inter-analyst reliability of ultrasound measurements obtained from two different sites at the rectus femoris muscle. Methods Muscle echo intensity was quantified from ultrasound images acquired at 50% [RF50] and at 70% [RF70] of the thigh length in 32 healthy subjects. Results Echo intensity values were higher ( p = 0.0001) at RF50 (61.08 ± 12.04) compared to RF70 (57.32 ± 12.58). Reliability was high in both RF50 and RF70 for all comparisons: intra-rater (ICC = 0.89 and 0.94), inter-rater (ICC = 0.89 and 0.89), and inter-analyst (ICC = 0.98 and 0.99), respectively. However, there were differences ( p < 0.05) between raters and analysts when obtaining/analyzing echo intensity values in both rectus femoris sites. Conclusions The differences in echo intensity values between positions suggest that rectus femoris's structure is not homogeneous, and therefore measurements from different muscle regions should not be used interchangeably. Both sites showed a high reliability, meaning that the measure is accurate if performed by the same experienced rater in different days, if performed by different experienced raters in the same day, and if analyzed by different well-trained analysts, regardless of the evaluated muscle site.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 73%

“…Specifically, in the RF, ICCs ranged between 0.31 and 0.91. 7,9,[12][13][14]16 Ruas et al 12 reported SEMs of 8.81% (MDs ¼ 24.44%) of the mean EI value, Tomko et al 16 found SEM values ranging from 6.46% to 8.12% of the mean EI, while Santos and Armada-da-Silva 13 reported SEMs ranging from 2.06 to 3.61 (a.u. ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Echo intensity reliability between two rectus femoris probe sites

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sample size was determined using mean and standard deviation data from a study that evaluated the same variable in a similar population. 22 Sixteen healthy young subjects (eight men and eight women; age, 27.56 ± 1.71 years; body mass index [BMI], 23.64 ± 2.79 kg/m 2 ) volunteered to participate in the study. All US images were obtained on the same day while subjects were laying down on a stretcher in a supine position with their knees fully extended.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Echo Intensity Reliability From Two Ultrasound Systems

Rabello

Pompeo

Paz

et al. 2020

Journal of Diagnostic Medical Sonography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Echo intensity measurements are highly influenced by ultrasound system and parameters used for measurement, making comparisons of results obtained from different ultrasound machines difficult. Therefore, it is necessary to understand how reliability changes when using different ultrasound systems and parameters. Materials and Methods: ALOKA SSD4000 and GE LOGIQ P6 systems were used to compare rectus femoris echo intensity in 16 healthy young subjects (eight women) using different depths (D), gains (G), and frequencies (F). The following settings were adopted: ALOKA1 (D6/G30/F7.5), ALOKA2 (D6/G45/F7.5), ALOKA3 (D6/G30/F10), LOGIQ1 (D6/G50/F15), LOGIQ2 (D6/G0/F15), LOGIQ3 (D6/G0/F10), and LOGIQ4 (D6/G30/F10). Intraclass correlation coefficient, standard error of the measure, minimum difference, and Bland-Altman tests were performed to calculate reliability and agreement between systems’ settings. Results: ALOKA1 × LOGIQ1, ALOKA1 × LOGIQ4, and ALOKA3 × LOGIQ1 showed moderate to high ICCs and agreement on the Bland-Altman test. Conclusion: Echo intensity varies between systems and parameters, but reliability can be increased by adjusting the ultrasound settings.

show abstract

“…34 A concern for the use of EI parameter is the poor inter-rater correlation (ICC: 0.21-0.65) reported by some authors 44,50 although good intra-rater correlation has been achieved (ICC: 0.84-0.96). 55,61,62 This could be due to the effects of region of interest (ROI) size and its relation to EI. A study showed that EI reliability and repeatability were a function of ROI size and shape 63 (►Fig.…”

Section: Echo Intensitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Ultrasound Biomarkers for Sarcopenia: What Can We Tell So Far?

Mombiela

Vucetic²,

Rossi

et al. 2020

Semin Musculoskelet Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sarcopenia is a disease characterized by decreased skeletal muscle mass, strength, and loss of function that can impair quality of life and increase physical disability, adverse metabolic effects, and mortality. This review familiarizes the reader with ultrasound (US)-based biomarkers for sarcopenia with a discussion of these topics: why assessing sarcopenia is relevant for radiologists, how to evaluate muscle structure with US, the current challenges or pitfalls of these biomarkers, and the implications of all the available evidence. It summarizes the most up-to-date literature on the pathophysiology behind the use of these US-based biomarkers, the biomarkers themselves, and a protocol used for their assessments. The article also describes representative examples that reflect modern practice in the field. Imaging is routinely used in clinical practice, and radiologists can play an important role in the evaluation of geriatric patients, providing an unprecedented opportunity to improve decision support in sarcopenia prevention and treatment.

show abstract

Reproducibility of ultrasound-derived muscle thickness and echo-intensity for the entire quadriceps femoris muscle

Cited by 43 publications

References 41 publications

Echo intensity reliability between two rectus femoris probe sites

Echo intensity reliability between two rectus femoris probe sites

Echo Intensity Reliability From Two Ultrasound Systems

Ultrasound Biomarkers for Sarcopenia: What Can We Tell So Far?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About