Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36431082›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022

Thickness of Biceps and Quadriceps Femoris Muscle Measured Using Point-of-Care Ultrasound as a Representation of Total Skeletal Muscle Mass.

Rianne N M Hogenbirk, Alain R Viddeleer, Judith E K R Hentzen, Willemijn Y van der Plas, Cees P van der Schans, Geertruida H de Bock, Schelto Kruijff, Joost M Klaase

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. MSK Ultrasound - An IJSPT Perspective.International journal of sports physical therapy · 2023
    Article
  18. 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

8 authors.

Rianne N M HogenbirkDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9713 GZ Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7723-0256
Alain R ViddeleerDepartment of Radiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9713 GZ Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3288-140X
Judith E K R HentzenDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9713 GZ Groningen, The Netherlands.
Willemijn Y van der PlasDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9713 GZ Groningen, The Netherlands.
Cees P van der SchansDepartment of Rehabilitation, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9713 GZ Groningen, The Netherlands.
Geertruida H de BockDepartment of Epidemiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9713 GZ Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3104-4471
Schelto KruijffDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9713 GZ Groningen, The Netherlands.
Joost M KlaaseDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, 9713 GZ Groningen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Generalized loss of muscle mass is associated with increased morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer. The gold standard to measure muscle mass is by using computed tomography (CT). However, the aim of this prospective observational cohort study was to determine whether point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) could be an easy-to-use, bedside measurement alternative to evaluate muscle status. Patients scheduled for major abdominal cancer surgery with a recent preoperative CT scan available were included. POCUS was used to measure the muscle thickness of mm. biceps brachii, mm. recti femoris, and mm. vasti intermedius 1 day prior to surgery. The total skeletal muscle index (SMI) was derived from patients’ abdominal CT scan at the third lumbar level. Muscle force of the upper and lower extremities was measured using a handheld dynamometer. A total of 165 patients were included (55% male; 65 ± 12 years). All POCUS measurements of muscle thickness had a statistically significant correlation with CT-derived SMI (r ≥ 0.48; p < 0.001). The strongest correlation between POCUS muscle measurements and SMI was observed when all POCUS muscle groups were added together (r = 0.73; p < 0.001). Muscle strength had a stronger correlation with POCUS-measured muscle thickness than with CT-derived SMI. To conclude, this study indicated a strong correlation between combined muscle thickness measurements performed by POCUS- and CT-derived SMI and measurements of muscle strength. These results suggest that handheld ultrasound is a valid tool for the assessment of skeletal muscle status.

Indexed as

muscle forcemuscle statusPOCUSsarcopeniaskeletal muscle index

Identifiers

PMID36431082
PMCPMC9695176

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.