ArticleJournal of clinical and translational research2020
Evaluating the results of resistance training using ultrasound or flexed arm circumference: A case for keeping it simple?
Article in Journal of clinical and translational research, 2020. 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.
- The concurrent validity of a portable ultrasound probe for muscle thickness measurements.Clinical physiology and functional imaging · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe present study aimed to compare changes in muscle size when measured by ultrasound (US) muscle thickness (MT) and arm circumference (AC) using data from young men.
methodsThe investigation involved data from three previous studies involving a total of 67 young men who performed resistance training (RT) for 10-12 weeks. Before and after the training period, elbow flexor MT was evaluated by US and AC was measured. We conducted two-stage individual patient data random-effects meta-analyses using both Frequentist and Bayesian hypothesis testing. One-sample analyses examined the absence or presence of a change in both MT and AC, and paired analyses examined whether these differed from one another or equivalent.
resultsOne-sample analysis supported that both AC (+4.9%; tp=0.0002; BF10=6,255,759,515) and MT (+3.9%;
conclusionBoth MT and AC are able to detect RT-induced changes in muscle size of the upper arm, but that the magnitude of changes may differ. Thus, care should be taken when comparing or combining estimates using either approach. RELEVANCE FOR PATIENTS: The use of AC might be considered as a practical and low-cost alternative to detect changes in muscle size.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33426361PMC7787222What 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.