ArticleJournal of medical ultrasonics (2001)2019
Sonographic morphometry of abductor pollicis brevis: can direct contact yield images comparable with those obtained by the water bath technique?
Article in Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sonographic evaluation of the abductor pollicis brevis muscle reflects muscle strength recovery after carpal tunnel release.Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study sought to compare ultrasound-guided measurements of the abductor pollicis brevis (APB) using the water bath technique (WBT) and the direct contact method (DM) and investigate whether the DM can reproduce the measurements that would be obtained with a non-contact method, such as the WBT.
methodsThe APB muscles of 80 hands (40 healthy adults) were measured. The WBT was performed in a plastic container filled with water. The probe was placed adjacent to the skin surface without contact. In the DM, sonographic images were obtained with the probe and skin separated by sufficient transmission gel. The muscle thickness and cross-sectional area (CSA) were calculated with both methods. All subjects were examined three times by two examiners to estimate the inter- and intra-observer reliability. Bland-Altman analysis was performed to examine the agreement between the methods.
resultsNo significant differences in the thickness or CSA of the APB were found. The interclass correlation coefficients for the WBT and DM showed almost perfect intra- and inter-observer reliability (range 0.87-0.94). There was no systematic bias between the techniques in the Bland-Altman analysis.
conclusionSimilar to the WBT, the DM provides measurements of the APB thickness and CSA without causing morphometric changes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.