ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2026
Assessment of Lower Limb Muscle Volume Using 3D Ultrasonography: Validity and Reliability Compared to MRI.
Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Should pre-measurement physical activity be standardized in muscle thickness and stiffness evaluations? - A randomized controlled four arm cross-over study.BMC medical imaging · 2026Trial
- Musculoskeletal ultrasound-guided cellular therapy: Current applications and future directions in skeletal muscle regeneration.Iranian journal of basic medical sciences · 2026Review
- Influence of passive, diet-based, hydration on muscle quantity assessment.Frontiers in physiology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMuscle volume is a key indicator of strength and neuromuscular health, commonly assessed via Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). While accurate, MRI is expensive and time-intensive. Three-dimensional ultrasonography (3DUS) offers a more accessible alternative but requires validation due to its setup-dependent accuracy. This study investigated the validity and reliability of a custom 3DUS setup for measuring lower limb muscle volumes.
methodsFifteen participants (8 female; 18-40 years) underwent two 3DUS and one MRI sessions. The tibialis anterior, vastus lateralis, gastrocnemii, and biceps femoris muscles were scanned using ultrasonography integrated with a motion capture system. Phantom models were also scanned. After ten participants, the scanning protocol was adapted. 3DUS and MRI volumes were analyzed using 3D Slicer by two raters or one rater, respectively. Reliability was assessed using intra-class correlation (ICC), coefficient of variation (CV%), standard error of measurement (SEM), and minimal detectable change (MDC).
results3DUS showed excellent test-retest and inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.97-0.99; CV% = 2.0-4.6%). MDC values were < 5 mL for all muscles. However, 3DUS systematically underestimated volumes compared to MRI (biases: -10.0 to 33.0%), with best agreement for tibialis anterior and lowest for gastrocnemii. After adapting the protocol, mean differences were reduced by ~ 70%. Phantom scans confirmed both modalities were accurate, suggesting in vivo errors arose from probe pressure and sweep inconsistencies.
conclusion3DUS demonstrated excellent reliability but underestimated volumes relative to MRI, influenced by muscle shape and location. Despite limitations, it is a promising, cost-effective method for tracking longitudinal muscle changes. Open methodology supports broader application.
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.