ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Assessment of Reliability, Agreement, and Accuracy of Masseter Muscle Ultrasound Thickness Measurement Using a New Standardized Protocol.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association of posterior occlusal support with ultrasonographic characteristics of the masseter muscle: a prospective single-center study.BMC oral health · 2026Observational
- Ultrasonographic masseter and temporalis thickness in tension-type headache.Acta neurologica Belgica · 2026Article
- Intra- and inter-rater reliability of swallowing-related muscle assessments using ultrasound devices.Journal of ultrasound · 2025Article
- Analysis of Masseter Muscle Structure in Patients with Mandibular Asymmetry Using Ultrasonic Diagnostic Equipment.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Comparison of Geniohyoid Muscle Morphology Assessment Using Conventional and Handheld Ultrasound Devices.Cureus · 2025Article
- Bruxism and Stress: Ultrasonographic Masseter Muscle Assessment and Salivary Melatonin-Cortisol Dynamics.Journal of oral rehabilitation · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is no validated method of assessing masseter muscle thickness (MMT) by ultrasound imaging (US). However, this is important to ensure study and measurement quality of MMT by US in future studies, as MMT differs depending on the examined area. Thus, this study's aim was to present a new standardized method for assessing the MMT by US and to evaluate the reliability, consistency, and accuracy of its measurements. We also compared the results of MMT measurements obtained by US and computer tomography (CT). The study included nine healthy adults. The US and CT scans were collected in a supine rest position with the mandible in relaxed position. US measurements were determined according to a new standardized protocol (with precise probe location). The MMT measured by CT and US over a seven-day interval showed excellent intra-rater reliability. The mean MMT measured by CT was 12.1 mm (1.74) on the right side and 11.9 mm (1.61) on the left side. The mean MMT measured by US was 12.7 mm (2.00) on the right side and 11.5 mm (1.37) on the left side. The mean percent error in MMT measurement between CT and US was below 6%. A strong linear relationship was found between the CT and US measurements of the MMT on both body sides (
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.