Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37437458›Full record

ReviewJournal of biomechanics2023

What good is a measure of muscle length? The how and why of direct measurements of skeletal muscle motion.

Thomas J Roberts, Taylor J M Dick

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of biomechanics, 2023. 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
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  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

2 authors.

Thomas J RobertsDepartment of Ecology, Evolution, and Organismal Biology, Brown University, Providence, RI, United States. Electronic address: thomas_roberts@brown.edu.
Taylor J M DickSchool of Biomedical Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

Funding

Elastic mechanisms in locomotionR01AR055295 · NIAMS · BROWN UNIVERSITY · PI EMANUEL AZIZI, Thomas Jay Roberts · 2008 to 2026
$6.0M
NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR055295
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the past 50 years our understanding of the central role that muscle motion has in powering movement has accelerated significantly. Fundamental to this progress has been the development of methods for measuring the length of muscles and muscle fibers in vivo. A measurement of muscle fiber length might seem a trivial piece of information on its own. Yet when combined with knowledge of the properties of skeletal muscle it has proven a powerful tool for understanding the mechanics and energetics of locomotion and informing models of motor control. In this perspective we showcase the value of direct measurements of muscle fiber length from four different techniques: sonomicrometry, fluoromicrometry, magnetomicrometry, and ultrasound. For each method, we review its history and provide a high-level user's guide for researchers choosing tools for measuring muscle length in vivo. We highlight key insights that these measurements have provided, including the importance of passive elastic mechanisms and how skeletal muscle properties govern locomotor performance. The diversity of locomotor behaviors revealed across comparative studies has provided an important tool for discovering the rules for muscle function that span vertebrate locomotion more broadly, including in humans.

Indexed as

Muscle ContractionMuscle, SkeletalHumansLocomotionMotionMuscle Fibers, Skeletal

Identifiers

PMID37437458
PMCPMC10530376

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.