ArticleInternational journal of sports physical therapy2025
Validity & Reliability of Using Musculoskeletal Ultrasound to Measure Cervical Disc Height.
Article in International journal of sports physical therapy, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cervical intervertebral disc (IVD) height can be used to indirectly measure of IVD hydration status. Intervertebral disc dehydration results in height loss, which can contribute to degenerative disc disease. There is need for in situ cervical IVD ultrasound assessment to better understand spinal health. Purpose: To determine reliability and validity of musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSU) as a tool to measure cervical IVD height compared to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at C4-5, C5-6 and C6-7 spinal segments. Study Design: Exploratory Cross-Sectional Study. Methods: This three-phase study enrolled 40 participants. Over the course of the study, 900 measurements of IVD were taken. Ten subjects participated in cervical spine MRI and MSU imaging to determine inter-rater reliability for cervical IVD height measurements. Twenty subjects underwent MRI and MSU to obtain images for measurement comparison and Bland-Altman Analysis assessed agreement between MSU and MRI (α=.05) for validity. Randomized, blinded, repeated-measures design using mean values was used to determine inter-rater reliability with intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC(2,3)) and standard error of measurement (SEM) at each IVD segment. Results: Anterior cervical IVD height of MRI and MSU were ≥0.91(95%CI=0.66-0.98) and ≥0.68(95%CI=0.27-0.92), respectively. Musculoskeletal ultrasound measurement's SEM between raters was comparable to MRI at ≤0.43mm (7.9%). No significant differences nor proportional bias between MRI and MSU measurements (p<0.05) were found at any IVD spinal level, r(18)=0.83, p<0.01. Average underestimation of MSU measurements compared to MRI was ≤ -0.10mm (2.2%). Conclusion: Methodology used for MSU cervical IVD height imaging and measurements was found to be moderately to highly reliable. Comparisons measurements between MRI and MSU support the use of MSU to measure cervical IVD height in future investigations, including variables which may affect the IVD hydration and homeostasis. Level of evidence: I 3.
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.