Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35164718›Full record

ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2022

Validity of ultrasound imaging for intrinsic foot muscle cross-sectional area measurements demonstrated by strong agreement with MRI.

Dallin C Swanson, Joshua K Sponbeck, Derek A Swanson, Conner D Stevens, Steven P Allen, Ulrike H Mitchell, James D George, Aaron Wayne Johnson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Dallin C SwansonDepartment of Exercise Sciences, Brigham Young University, 84602, Provo, UT, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1457-3910
Joshua K SponbeckDepartment of Exercise Sciences, Brigham Young University, 84602, Provo, UT, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7291-8908
Derek A SwansonDepartment of Exercise Sciences, Brigham Young University, 84602, Provo, UT, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8863-2085
Conner D StevensDepartment of Exercise Sciences, Brigham Young University, 84602, Provo, UT, USA.
Steven P AllenElectrical and Computer Engineering, Ira A. Fulton College of Engineering, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4778-8168
Ulrike H MitchellDepartment of Exercise Sciences, Brigham Young University, 84602, Provo, UT, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2298-8756
James D GeorgeDepartment of Exercise Sciences, Brigham Young University, 84602, Provo, UT, USA.
Aaron Wayne JohnsonDepartment of Exercise Sciences, Brigham Young University, 84602, Provo, UT, USA. Wayne_johnson@byu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2207-5826

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIntrinsic foot muscles maintain foot structural integrity and contribute to functional movement, posture and balance. Thus, assessing intrinsic foot muscle size and strength are important. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been shown to accurately image the individual muscles but is costly and time consuming. Ultrasound (US) imaging may provide an alternative that is less costly and more readily available. The purpose of this study was to investigate the validity and intratester reliability of US imaging in measuring intrinsic foot muscle size in comparison to MRI.

methodsUS and MRI were employed to measure the intrinsic foot muscle size involving 35 participants (females = 13; males = 22). The scanned intrinsic foot muscles included the flexor hallucis brevis (FHB), abductor hallucis (ABDH), flexor digitorum brevis (FDB), quadratus plantae (QP) and abductor digiti minimi (ADM). Pearson product correlation (r), intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), standard error of the measurement (SEm) and minimal detectable difference (MDD) were calculated.

resultsHigh correlations were detected between the US and MRI cross-sectional area (CSA) measurements (r = .971 to 0.995). Test reliability was excellent for both MRI and US (ICC = 0.994 to 0.999). Limits of agreement between MRI and US measurements from ranged from 5.7 to 12.2% of muscle size. SEm values for US ranged from 0.026 to 0.044 cm2, while the SEm for MRI ranged from 0.018 to 0.023 cm2. MDD values for US ranged from 0.073 to 0.122 cm2, while MRI ranged from 0.045 to 0.064 cm2.

conclusionsUS appears to be a valid and reliable alternative to MRI when measuring intrinsic foot muscle CSA. While US is less costly and more readily available, the MRI results were shown to be slightly more precise.

Indexed as

FootMuscle, SkeletalFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleReproducibility of ResultsUltrasonographyDiagnostic imagingFoot muscle sizeValidity

Identifiers

PMID35164718
PMCPMC8842549

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.