ArticleAcademic radiology2022
Rectus Abdominis Muscle Thickness is a Valid Measure of Cross-Sectional Area: Implications for Ultrasound.
Article in Academic radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Study of the Rehabilitation Exercise 5R System and Aerobic Exercise on Postpartum Recovery: Impacts on Muscle Function and Metabolic Health.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025Trial
- Effect of neuromuscular electrical stimulation combined with early rehabilitation therapy on mechanically ventilated patients: a prospective randomized controlled study.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2023Trial
- Metabolic syndrome: comparison of diagnostic capability among waist circumference and supine and upright multidetector computed tomography.Japanese journal of radiology · 2026Article
- A multitask deep learning framework for the automated quantification of abdominal tissue morphology on ultrasound and the therapeutic monitoring of diastasis recti abdominis.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Refining Osteoarthritis Risk Prediction: Average Sagittal Abdominal Diameter Complements and Enhances Body Mass Index With Sex-Specific Insights From National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.Health care science · 2026Article
- Assessment of Quadriceps Muscle Characteristics in Female Division I Athletes: A Validation Study of Wireless Probes Against Standard Ultrasound Units.Journal of sport rehabilitation · 2026Article
- A prospective study of two-dimensional ultrasonography combined with shear wave elastography for pregnancy-related diastasis recti abdominis.Frontiers in physiology · 2024Article
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
RATIONALE AND
objectivesThe rectus abdominis muscle exhibits early and significant muscle atrophy, which has largely been characterized using ultrasound measured muscle thickness. However, the validity of rectus abdominis muscle thickness as a metric of muscle size has not been established, limiting precise interpretation of age-related changes. In a heterogeneous cohort of women and men, our objectives were to: (1) evaluate the association between rectus abdominis muscle thickness and cross-sectional area (CSA), and (2) examine if the visceral adipose tissue (VAT) compartment confounds the validity of rectus abdominis muscle thickness. MATERIALS AND
methodsAbdominal computed tomography scans of the third lumbar vertebrae from clinical and healthy populations were used to evaluate rectus abdominis thickness and CSA, and VAT CSA. Computed tomography scans were utilized due to the limited field of view of ultrasound imaging to capture the rectus abdominis CSA.
resultsA total of 348 individuals (31% women) were included in this analysis, with a mean ± standard deviation age and body mass index of 51.2 ± 15.4 years and 28.0 ± 5.1 kg/m
conclusionThese data support the use of rectus abdominis muscle thickness as a measurement of muscle size in both women and men; however, the VAT compartment may confound its validity to a minor extent in men.
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.