Observational studyBMC medical imaging2024
Using ultrafast angio planewave ultrasensitive and conventional doppler imaging techniques to assess intramuscular blood perfusion in older adults.
Observational study in BMC medical imaging, 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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMicrovascular ultrasound imaging techniques such as Angio PLanewave UltraSensitive (Angio-PL.U.S.) have been used to detect microvascular blood flow in various organs and tissues. However, the advantage of Angio-PL.U.S. for assessing muscle microvascularity over other non-invasive imaging modalities has not been investigated. This cross-sectional study compared ultrafast Angio-PL.U.S. and conventional color Doppler flow imaging (CDFI) techniques for assessing intramuscular blood perfusion.
methodsForty-five older adults participated (age = 59.1 ± 7.6). The vascularity index (VI) was used to quantify intramuscular blood flow of the bilateral biceps brachii (BB) and medial gastrocnemius (MG). Intra-limb (difference in VI between CDFI and Angio-PL.U.S. techniques) and inter-limb differences [percent side-to-side differences (%SSD) in VI between dominant and non-dominant sides] were compared using Wilcoxon Signed Ranks and Mann-Whitney U tests, respectively. Associations between techniques were assessed using Spearman's rho (ρ).
resultsNo significant differences were observed between dominant and non-dominant BB (p ≥ 0.053) and MG (p ≥ 0.756) for both CDFI-VI and Angio-PL.U.S.-VI. Only VI measures for the non-dominant BB demonstrated significant intra-limb difference between techniques (p = 0.002). A significant %SSD between techniques was observed for BB (p = 0.022) but not MG (p = 0.225). Strong to very strong correlations were observed between CDFI-VI and Angio-PL.U.S.-VI across all muscles (ρ = 0.616-0.814, p ≤ 0.001).
conclusionUltrafast Angio-PL.U.S. and conventional ultrasound imaging techniques were comparable when used in conjunction with the VI for quantifying resting intramuscular blood flow. Angio-PL.U.S. appeared to be more sensitive in detecting bilateral disparities in upper extremity muscles. However, further research is needed to validate these findings and investigate the potential clinical utility of this technique for characterizing disease progression in populations with global or unilateral musculoskeletal tissue alterations.
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.