ArticleJournal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle2024
Test-retest reliability and follow-up of muscle magnetic resonance elastography in adults with and without muscle diseases.
Article in Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comment on 'Cachexia in Preclinical Rheumatoid Arthritis: Longitudinal Observational Study of Thigh Magnetic Resonance Imaging From Osteoarthritis Initiative Cohort' by Moradi Et Al.Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle · 2024Article
- Test-retest reliability and follow-up of muscle magnetic resonance elastography in adults with and without muscle diseases.Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe investigated the potential of magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) stiffness measurements in skeletal muscles as an outcome measure, by determining its test-retest reliability, as well as its sensitivity to change in a longitudinal follow-up study.
methodsWe assessed test-retest reliability of muscle MRE in 20 subjects with (n = 5) and without (n = 15) muscle diseases and compared this to Dixon proton density fat fraction (PDFF) and volume measurements. Next, we measured MRE muscle stiffness in 21 adults with Becker muscular dystrophy (BMD) and 21 age-matched healthy controls at baseline, and after 9 and 18 months. We compared two different methods of analysing MRE data in this study: 'Method A' used the stiffness maps generated by the Philips MRE software, and 'Method B' applied a custom-made procedure based on wavelength measurements on the MRE images.
resultsIntraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) of muscle stiffness ranged from good (0.83 for left vastus medialis, P < 0.001) to poor (0.19 for right rectus femoris, P = 0.212) for the examined thigh muscles with Method A, but we did not find a significant test-retest reliability with Method B (P > 0.050 for all). The ICC of muscle PDFF and volume measurements was excellent (>0.90; P < 0.001) for all muscles. At baseline, the average stiffness of all thigh muscles was significantly lower in adults with BMD than in controls for both Method A (-0.2 kPa, P = 0.025) and Method B (-0.6 kPa, P < 0.001). Regardless of which method was used, there was no significant difference in the evolution of muscle stiffness in patients and controls over 18 months.
conclusionsTest-retest reliability of muscle MRE using a simple 2D technique was suboptimal, and did not reliably measure muscle stiffness changes in adults with BMD as compared with controls over 18 months. While the results provide motivation for testing more advanced 3D MRE methods, we conclude that the simple 2D MRE implementation used in this study is not suitable as an outcome measure for characterizing thigh muscle in clinical trials.
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.