ArticleJournal of medical ultrasonics (2001)2024
Assessing the effectiveness of Compare Assistant for improving intra-rater reliability of ultrasound-measured muscle thickness.
Article in Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMuscle thickness measured via ultrasound is commonly used to assess muscle size. The purpose of this study was to determine if the reliability of this measurement will improve if using the Compare Assistant tool, and whether this depends on technician experience and the muscle being assessed.
methodsIndividuals came to the laboratory for two visits each separated by 24 h. On day 1, two ultrasound images were taken on the individual's anterior upper arm (elbow flexors) and anterior lower leg (tibialis anterior) by two inexperienced and one experienced ultrasound technician. On day 2, three images were taken: (1) without looking at the previous images taken on day 1; (2) after re-examining the images taken on day 1, and (3) side-by-side with the images taken on day 1 via Compare Assistant. Bayes Factors (BF
resultsThere was no rater by measurement technique interaction (upper body: BF
conclusionThe results of this study suggest that day-to-day reliability of muscle thickness measurement may be limited by random biological variability as opposed to technician error.
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.