Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36960135›Full record

ArticleAustralasian journal of ultrasound in medicine2023

Reproducibility and feasibility of a handheld ultrasound device compared to a standard ultrasound machine in muscle thickness measurements.

Abdulrahman M Alfuraih, Mohammed A Alqarni, Hamad S Alhuthaili, Meshal Y Mubaraki, Nader N Alotaibi, Fahad M Almusalim

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Australasian journal of ultrasound in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Clinical ultrasound research influences clinical ultrasound practice.Australasian journal of ultrasound in medicine · 2023
    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 1 country.

Abdulrahman M AlfuraihRadiology and Medical Imaging Department College of Applied Medical Sciences, Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University Kharj Saudi Arabia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4655-7248
Mohammed A AlqarniRadiology and Medical Imaging Department College of Applied Medical Sciences, Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University Kharj Saudi Arabia.
Hamad S AlhuthailiRadiology and Medical Imaging Department College of Applied Medical Sciences, Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University Kharj Saudi Arabia.
Meshal Y MubarakiRadiology and Medical Imaging Department College of Applied Medical Sciences, Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University Kharj Saudi Arabia.
Nader N AlotaibiRadiology and Medical Imaging Department College of Applied Medical Sciences, Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University Kharj Saudi Arabia.
Fahad M AlmusalimRadiology and Medical Imaging Department College of Applied Medical Sciences, Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University Kharj Saudi Arabia.
Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University · SA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To test the feasibility and reproducibility of a handheld ultrasound device (HUD) compared to a standard ultrasound machine for muscle thickness measurements in healthy participants. Methods: A prospective cross-sectional study was designed where two novice operators tested the thickness of the vastus lateralis, rectus femoris, and vastus intermedius muscles on recruited asymptomatic participants with no history of muscle diseases. The anterior-posterior thickness of each muscle was measured three times per operator to evaluate intra-operator reproducibility and using two machines to evaluate inter-system reproducibility. Scanning started using the HUD followed by the standard system. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and simple linear regression were used to test for reproducibility and proportional bias respectively. Results: A total of 33 male participants volunteered to take part in this study with a mean age of 22.7 years (6.8). Intra-operator reproducibility was almost perfect for both operators on both machines (ICC > 0.80). The measurements difference percentage between the machines ranged from 1.8% to 6.6% and inter-system reproducibility ICC ranged from 0.815 to 0.927 showing excellent reproducibility. Inter-operator reproducibility was poor to moderate on both machines (ICC: 0.522-0.849). Regression analysis showed no proportional bias in the measurements. All measurements were completed successfully using the HUD. Conclusion: The HUD demonstrated excellent accuracy compared to the standard ultrasound machine for measuring thigh muscle thickness.

Indexed as

handheldmusclereproducibilitythicknessultrasound

Identifiers

PMID36960135
PMCPMC10030094
OpenAlexW4317107309

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.