ArticlePeerJ2024
Reliability and validity of an app-assisted tissue compliance meter in measuring tissue stiffness on a phantom model.
Article in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Should pre-measurement physical activity be standardized in muscle thickness and stiffness evaluations? - A randomized controlled four arm cross-over study.BMC medical imaging · 2026Trial
- How much habituation is enough? An R application for ad hoc content-related limits of acceptance in behavioral research.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Fascia as a Functional System in Health and Disease: From Fundamental Biology to Assessment and Targeted Interventions.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Validation and reliability of mechanical stiffness assessment tools in multilayered polyurethane phantom models of healthy and diabetic plantar soft tissues.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Ground truth and demographic data for ultrasound assessment of thoracolumbar fascia deformation and shearing.Scientific data · 2025Article
- The In Vitro and Vivo Validation of a New Ultrasound Method to Quantify Thoracolumbar Fascia Deformation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- A mixed-method investigation of the root causes of construction project delays in Afghanistan.Heliyon · 2025Article
- Effects of platelet-rich plasma injection on electrical activity and biomechanics of the erector spinae muscles in lumbar myofascial pain syndrome.Scientific reports · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Most methods for soft tissue stiffness assessment require high financial resources, significant technical effort, or extensive therapist training. The PACT Sense device was developed to be used in a wide range of applications and user groups. However, to date, there are no data on its validity and reliability. The aim of this study was to investigate the validity and reliability of the PACT device. Methods: A polyurethane phantom tissue model (PTM) mimicking the mechanical properties of the fascia profunda and the erector spinae muscle was used. Stiffness measurements with PACT were conducted by two independent investigators. For construct validity, correlations were calculated between the known stiffness of the PTM and values obtained with PACT. For concurrent validity, we determined the association between the PACT values and additional measurements with the established MyotonPRO device. To estimate interrater and intrarater (two measurements with an interval of 7 days) reliability, we used the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results: Correlation analysis (PTM/PACT) revealed very high concurrent validity (r = 0.99; Conclusions: The PACT provides valid and reliable stiffness measurements in tissue phantoms. Further studies in humans are needed to confirm its physiometric properties under
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.