ArticleJournal of physical therapy science2020
Validity and reliability of velocity measurements on ultrasonography using custom software with an optical-flow algorithm.
Article in Journal of physical therapy science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of Lower-Leg Fascial Flossing on Flexibility and Performance in Collegiate Distance Runners: Ultrasound Evaluation of Fascial Gliding.International journal of sports physical therapy · 2026Article
- Optical Flow Analysis of Paralaryngeal Muscle Movement.The Laryngoscope · 2024Article
- Effect of Self-Myofascial Release of the Lower Back on Myofascial Gliding, Lumbar Flexibility, and Abdominal Trunk Muscle Strength: A Crossover Study.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
[Purpose] The purposes of this study were: 1) to validate a commercial software program using an optical-flow algorithm to measure the velocity of muscle movement; and 2) to determine optimal image quality and the size and location of regions of interest. [Materials and Methods] First, a block of pork thigh muscle was pulled at 33 different constant velocities. Subsequently, an accelerometer, a high-velocity camera, and ultrasonography were used to obtain measurements, and an Echolizer software was used to determine ultrasound-based velocities. Finally, the impact of the location and size of the regions of interest and the brightness and contrast of the images was analyzed. [Results] The regression equation was expressed as y=1.150 × -0.071 with a determination coefficient of 0.996. The average absolute error of the software was 0.02 mm/s, and the average relative error was 0.20% of the actual velocity between 2.5 and 16.5 mm/s after the regression equation was applied to the measured data. The accuracy of measurement was reduced owing to the increased size of the regions of interest, which included poor image quality or a deeper zone. [Conclusion] Our method of measuring muscle velocity using a custom program showed high validity and reliability. It is necessary to use the regression equation in the program to improve accuracy. However, the validity of the method could be reduced if the regions of interest involve deep tissues or areas with poor visualization of the muscle bundles, or if the brightness and contrast of the image are set inaccurately.
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.