Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35173775›Full record

ArticleUltrasound (Leeds, England)2022

Concurrent validity and intrarater reliability of two ultrasound-based methods for assessing patellar tendon stiffness.

P Henriksen, K Brage, T Junge, B Juul-Kristensen, J Bojsen-Møller, J B Thorlund

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ultrasound (Leeds, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 52% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

P HenriksenHealth Sciences Research Centre, UCL University College, Odense, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7706-7137
K BrageHealth Sciences Research Centre, UCL University College, Odense, Denmark.
T JungeHealth Sciences Research Centre, UCL University College, Odense, Denmark.
B Juul-KristensenDepartment of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
J Bojsen-MøllerDepartment of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
J B ThorlundDepartment of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
University of Southern Denmark · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAssessment of tendon stiffness in vivo traditionally involves maximal muscle contractions, which can be challenging in pain populations. Alternative methods are suggested, although the clinimetric properties are sparse. This study investigated the concurrent validity and the intrarater reliability of two ultrasound-based methods for assessing patellar tendon stiffness.

methodsPatellar tendon stiffness was assessed in 17 healthy adults with (a) the dynamometer and B-mode ultrasonography method (DBUS) and (b) the strain elastography method. Correlations between the two methods were analysed using Kendall's Tau-b. The relative reliability of both methods was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The absolute reliability was presented by Bland-Altman plots, standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimum detectable change (MDC).

resultsNo correlation was found between the two methods, irrespective of reference tissue in strain elastography (Kendall's Tau-b Hoffa = -0.01 (p = 1.00), Kendall's Tau-b subcutis = 0.04 (p = 0.87)). Tracking of the tendon elongation in the DBUS method had good to excellent relative reliability (ICC = 0.95 (95% confidence interval - CI: 0.85-0.98)) and high absolute reliability (SEM = 0.04 mm (1%), MDC = 0.11 mm (3%)). The strain elastography method had good to excellent relative reliability, regardless of reference tissue (ICC Hoffa = 0.95 (95% CI: 0.86-0.98), ICC subcutis = 0.94 (95% CI: 0.82-0.98)), but low absolute reliability (SEM Hoffa = 0.06 (20%), MDC Hoffa = 0.18 (60%), SEM subcutis = 0.12 (41%), MDC subcutis = 0.32 (110%)).

conclusionsNo concurrent validity existed for DBUS and strain elastography, suggesting that the two methods measure different tendon properties. The overall reliability for the DBUS method was high, but the absolute reliability was low for strain elastography stiffness ratios. Therefore, the strain elastography method may not be recommended for tracking differences in patellar tendon stiffness in healthy adults.

Indexed as

elastographyPatellar tendonreliabilitystiffnessultrasound

Identifiers

PMID35173775
PMCPMC8841948
OpenAlexW3129766251

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.