Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36646734›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

Assessing reliability and validity of different stiffness measurement tools on a multi-layered phantom tissue model.

Katja Bartsch, Andreas Brandl, Patrick Weber, Jan Wilke, Sabine F Bensamoun, Wolfgang Bauermeister, Werner Klingler, Robert Schleip

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06033430 (The Effectiveness of Dry Needling in Treating Linear Hypertrophic Scar Tissue), which is not on this map. Cited by 48 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
17.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT06033430 naunknown statusnot on this map

The Effectiveness of Dry Needling in Treating Linear Hypertrophic Scar Tissue: a Randomized Sham-controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorIran University of Medical SciencesRan2023 to 2025Enrolled80ConditionsScar Tissue, Hypertrophic Scar, Hypertrophic Scar of Upper Arm (Disorder), Hypertrophic Surgical ScarArmsTrue dry needling, Sham dry needling
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

48 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 71 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 at 8 institutions in 4 countries.

Katja BartschDepartment of Sport Science and Sport, Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Andreas BrandlDepartment of Sports Medicine, Faculty for Psychology and Human Movement Science, Institute for Human Movement Science, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Patrick WeberDepartment for Physical Activity in Public Health, Institute of Movement and Neurosciences, German Sport University Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Jan WilkeDepartment of Movement Sciences, University of Klagenfurt, Klagenfurt, Austria.
Sabine F BensamounUniversité de Technologie de Compiègne, CNRS UMR 7338, Biomechanics and Bioengineering Laboratory, Sorbonne University, Compiègne, France.
Wolfgang BauermeisterCharkiv National Medical University, Charkiv, Ukraine.
Werner KlinglerConservative and Rehabilitative Orthopedics, Department of Sport and Health Sciences, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Robert SchleipConservative and Rehabilitative Orthopedics, Department of Sport and Health Sciences, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany. Robert.Schleip@tum.de.
Diploma Hochschule · DEGerman Sport University Cologne · DEKharkiv National Medical University · UATechnical University of Munich · DEUniversität Ulm · DEUniversité de Technologie de Compiègne · FRUniversity Hospital Ulm · DEUniversity of Klagenfurt · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Changes in the mechanical properties (i.e., stiffness) of soft tissues have been linked to musculoskeletal disorders, pain conditions, and cancer biology, leading to a rising demand for diagnostic methods. Despite the general availability of different stiffness measurement tools, it is unclear as to which are best suited for different tissue types and the related measurement depths. The study aimed to compare different stiffness measurement tools' (SMT) reliability on a multi-layered phantom tissue model (MPTM). A polyurethane MPTM simulated the four layers of the thoracolumbar region: cutis (CUT), subcutaneous connective tissue (SCT), fascia profunda (FPR), and erector spinae (ERS), with varying stiffness parameters. Evaluated stiffness measurement tools included Shore Durometer, Semi-Electronic Tissue Compliance Meter (STCM), IndentoPRO, MyotonPRO, and ultrasound imaging. Measurements were made by two independent, blinded examiners. Shore Durometer, STCM, IndentoPRO, and MyotonPRO reliably detected stiffness changes in three of the four MPTM layers, but not in the thin (1 mm thick) layer simulating FPR. With ultrasound imaging, only stiffness changes in layers thicker than 3 mm could be measured reliably. Significant correlations ranging from 0.70 to 0.98 (all p < 0.01) were found. The interrater reliability ranged from good to excellent (ICC(2,2) = 0.75-0.98). The results are encouraging for researchers and clinical practitioners as the investigated stiffness measurement tools are easy-to-use and comparatively affordable.

Indexed as

Muscle, SkeletalSpineFasciaPhantoms, ImagingReproducibility of ResultsSkinUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID36646734
PMCPMC9842673
OpenAlexW4316468769

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.