ReviewInsights into imaging2024
Ultrasound elastography of back muscle biomechanical properties: a systematic review and meta-analysis of current methods.
Review in Insights into imaging, 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.
- Quantitative ultrasound evaluation of the thoracolumbar fascia after manual and acupuncture therapies: an exploratory mechanistic randomized controlled trial with a sequential within-subject phase.European radiology experimental · 2026Trial
- Neuroimmune Phenotyping as the Next Frontier in Chronic Pain Medicine for Musculoskeletal Back Pain.Current pain and headache reports · 2026Review
- Ultrasound shear wave elastography for the assessment of pelvic floor muscle stiffness: technical and analytical challenges in practice.Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea) · 2026Article
- Shear Wave Elastography in Musculoskeletal Imaging: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Ultrasound Elastography for the Assessment of Sarcopenia.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Advances in mechanical assessments of in vivo human lumbar spine tissues with noninvasive imaging techniques.npj biomedical innovations · 2026Review
- Evaluation of the Combined Use of Elastography and Cervicometry With the E-Cervix Index to Predict Second Trimester Preterm Birth Risk.Journal of clinical medicine research · 2025Article
- Comparative Analysis of Muscle Elasticity and Pathological Characteristics Between Affected and Unaffected Sides in Postherpetic Neuralgia Patients: Protocol for a Pilot Cohort Trail.Journal of pain research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo report the current elastography methods used to quantify back muscles' biomechanical characteristics in patients with musculoskeletal disorders (MSKd) and inform on their reliability, validity, and responsiveness.
methodsMEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane library and grey literature were consulted. Predefined criteria allowed for study selection and data extraction. The quality of evidence was rated using the COSMIN tool. Data were meta-analyzed in terms of pooled intraclass correlation coefficient (pICC) for reliability and pooled standardized mean difference (pSMD) for validity and responsiveness. Heterogeneity was assessed.
resultsSeventy-nine studies were included in the meta-analysis (total number of participants N = 3178). Three elastography methods were identified: strain imaging (SI; number of cohorts M = 26), shear wave imaging (SWI; M = 50), and vibration sonoelastography (VSE; M = 3). Strain imaging and SWI studies reported good reliability measurement properties (pICC > 0.70) and a medium pSMD (0.58 for SI and 0.60 for SWI; p ≤ 0.020) in discriminating MSKd from controls' condition (validity). Strain imaging studies reported a medium pSMD (0.64; p = 0.005) in detecting within-group changes over time, whereas SWI pSMD was very high (1.24; p = 0.005). Only SWI reported significant but small pSMD (0.30; p = 0.003) in detecting between-group changes over time. The small number of VSE studies could not be meta-analyzed. Heterogeneity was high (I-squared > 90%; p < 0.001).
conclusionsElastography presents good reliability results and a medium pSMD in discriminating MSKd from control conditions. Responsiveness data suggest detectable changes within groups over time using SI and SWI, calling for long-term longitudinal studies. Assessing changes between groups over time using elastography still needs to be proven. Highly significant heterogeneity limits meta-analytic results. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: While still in its early-stage exploration phase, musculoskeletal ultrasound elastography may reliably quantify back muscles' biomechanics in asymptomatic individuals, moderately discriminate back musculoskeletal disorders and detect biomechanical changes over time in these conditions, calling for long-term longitudinal studies. KEY POINTS: Ultrasound elastography is reviewed for back pain and related musculoskeletal disorder assessments. Growing literature supports good reproducibility, some validity and responsiveness. Back muscle elastography considers assumptions calling for standardized protocols.
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.