ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2022
Validity of ultrasound imaging for intrinsic foot muscle cross-sectional area measurements demonstrated by strong agreement with MRI.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The role of muscle ultrasound in stroke rehabilitation: a review of calf muscle alterations and clinical implications.Frontiers in neurologyPooled it
- Validity of MRI and Ultrasound Volume Measurements of Foot Muscles and Plantar Fascia Cross-Sectional Area Within Older Adults With and Without Chronic Plantar Fasciitis.Journal of foot and ankle research · 2025Article
- Quantitative ultrasonography of the foot muscles: a comprehensive perspective on reliability.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Observational
- Differential effects of intrinsic- versus extrinsic-first corrective exercise programs on morphometric outcomes and navicular drop in pediatric flatfoot.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Ultrasound measurement of vastus lateralis and vastus medialis muscle parameters to identify chronic thyrotoxic myopathy.Endocrine connections · 2023Article
- Ultrasound of the plantar foot: a guide for the assessment of plantar intrinsic muscles.Journal of ultrasonography · 2023Article
- Current evidence regarding 2D ultrasonography monitoring of intrinsic foot muscle properties: A systematic review.Heliyon · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.