ArticleBMC medical imaging2019
Assessment of peripheral muscle thickness and architecture in healthy volunteers using hand-held ultrasound devices; a comparison study with standard ultrasound.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of progressive body-weight versus barbell back squat training on strength, hypertrophy and body fat among sedentary young women.Scientific reports · 2023Trial
- Ultrasound-guided internal jugular venipuncture using pocket-sized versus standard ultrasound devices: a prospective non-inferiority trial.Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001) · 2021Trial
- Methodological standards for body composition assessment-an expert-endorsed guide for research and clinical applications: bioimpedance, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, computerized tomography, and ultrasound methods.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2026Review
- Poor muscle quality: A hidden and detrimental health condition in obesity.Reviews in endocrine & metabolic disorders · 2025Review
- Reliability and Inter-Device Agreement Between a Portable Handheld Ultrasound Scanner and a Conventional Ultrasound System for Assessing the Thickness of the Rectus Femoris and Vastus Intermedius.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2025Article
- Comparison of 6 handheld ultrasound devices by point-of-care ultrasound experts: a cross-sectional study.The ultrasound journal · 2024Article
- Ultrasonography for Eating and Swallowing Assessment: A Narrative Review of Integrated Insights for Noninvasive Clinical Practice.Nutrients · 2023Review
- Nascent to novel methods to evaluate malnutrition and frailty in the surgical patient.JPEN. Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition · 2023Review
- Reproducibility and feasibility of a handheld ultrasound device compared to a standard ultrasound machine in muscle thickness measurements.Australasian journal of ultrasound in medicine · 2023Article
- Intra-assessor reliability and measurement error of ultrasound measures for foot muscle morphology in older adults using a tablet-based ultrasound machine.Journal of foot and ankle research · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPocket-sized ultrasound devices are increasingly used in a variety of clinical situations, and perform well against standard ultrasound machines. We sought to investigate if a pocket-sized ultrasound device can assess muscle thickness and architecture in healthy volunteers.
methodsHealthy male volunteers (n = 21) across a range of ages were recruited to the study. Laying supine, ultrasound images were taken from the right anterior and lateral thigh. Thickness of the rectus femoris (RFMT), vastus intermedius (VIMT), and the two combined (anterior thigh, AMT) were measured, along with thickness of vastus lateralis (VLMT), pennation angle (VLPA) and derived fascicle length (VLFL). These scans were performed initially using a pocket-sized ultrasound (VScan) and then using a standard device (Telemed Echoblaster 128).
resultsIn all six variables, there was no significant difference between the two sets of measurements. Intra-class correlation co-efficients (ICC) for VLMT, VLPA, and AMT were all excellent (0.93, 0.89, 0.90 respectively) with the derived value of VLFL having an ICC of 0.84. All ICC values were statistically significant. Regression analysis demonstrated no evidence of proportional bias in any of the measured or derived variables.
conclusionA pocket-sized ultrasound device gives similar measurements of lower limb muscle thickness and architecture as a standard device in healthy volunteers.
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.