ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2025
Quantitative ultrasonography of the foot muscles: a comprehensive perspective on reliability.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2025. 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.
- Comparative Evaluation of Ultrasound Measurement of the Plantar Fascia Between Expert and Novice Technicians.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Structural changes in the upper trapezius muscle of fibromyalgia patients identified by quantitative ultrasonography: a cross-sectional study.Rheumatology international · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Quantitative ultrasound imaging is a popular technique to assess the structural properties of the intrinsic and extrinsic foot muscles. Although several studies examined test-retest reliability, specific gaps remain in assessing inter-rater reliability, particularly distinguishing between image acquisition and muscle measurement. Additionally, these studies utilized equipment that may not be generalizable across both clinical and research settings and often involved small sample sizes without prior sample size calculations. This study aimed to investigate test-retest reliability as well as global and measurement-based inter-rater reliability (MIRR) using a low-end ultrasound device to measure intrinsic and extrinsic foot muscle sizes. Methods: This prospective reliability study included 21 active individuals. Five intrinsic muscles [abductor hallucis (AbH), flexor digitorum brevis (FDB), flexor hallucis brevis (FHB), quadratus plantae (QP), abductor digiti minimi (AbDM)], and three extrinsic muscles [peroneal (PER), flexor digitorum longus, tibialis anterior (TA)] were scanned. Three investigators independently acquired images on two occasions and measured cross-sectional area (CSA) and thickness in September and October 2023. Participants were assessed either at the Musculoskeletal Research Group laboratory (University of Leuven, Bruges) or in the Rehabilitation Sciences laboratory (Ghent University hospital). Test-retest (same investigator, one week in between), global inter-rater (each investigator measures own image set) and MIRR (three investigators measure one image set) was performed following intra-class correlation, standard error of the measurement (SEM) and coefficient of variation. Results: Test-retest reliability showed intraclass-correlation coefficients of 0.60-0.88 for the FDB and 0.38-0.73 for the TA. SEM ranged from 0.16 to 0.41 cm Conclusions: Most muscles demonstrated moderate to excellent test-retest reliability using a portable ultrasound device, supporting its generalizability. However, the greater variability in global inter-rater reliability suggests substantial variation during image acquisition. The same clinician should perform pre-intervention and follow-up assessments to minimize errors. If different clinicians are involved, caution is needed when comparing measurements.
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.