ArticlePeerJ2022
Reliability and accuracy of ultrasound image analyses completed manually
Article in PeerJ, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic accuracy of lung ultrasound score for bronchopulmonary dysplasia in preterm neonates: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Pooled it
- Context-Dependent Differences in Muscle Architecture Following Fatigue in Ultramarathon Athletes: A Comparison Between Laboratory and Real Race Settings.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Real-time ultrasound and RGB imaging integration for non-invasive prediction of ribeye area in Tropical Crossbred Brahman Cattle.Tropical animal health and production · 2025Article
- Reliability of Shear Wave Elastography for Measuring the Elastic Properties of the Quadratus Lumborum Muscle.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Fascicle differentiation of upper extremity nerves on high-resolution ultrasound with multimodal microscopic verification.Scientific reports · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Analysis of Brightness-mode ultrasound-captured fascicle angle (FA) and fascicle length (FL) can be completed manually with computer-based programs or by automated programs. Insufficient data exists regarding reliability and accuracy of automated tools. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the test-retest reliability of automatic and manual ultrasound analyses, while determining accuracy of the automatic tool against the manual equivalent. Twenty-three participants (mean ± SD; age = 24 ± 4 years; height = 172.2 ± 10.5 cm; body mass = 73.1 ± 16.1 kg) completed one laboratory visit consisting of two trials where vastus lateralis muscle architecture was assessed with ultrasound. Images were taken at both lower (10 MHz) and higher frequency (12 MHz). Images were analyzed manually in an open-source imaging program and automatically using a separate open-source macro function. Test-retest reliability statistics were calculated for automatic and manual analyses. Accuracy was determined with validity statistics and were calculated for automatic analyses. The results show that manual ultrasound analyses for FA and FL for both lower and higher frequency displayed good reliability (ICC
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.