ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2025
Quantitative evaluation of muscle quality and quantity using an ultrasound radio frequency signal.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 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
Abstract
backgroundWe aimed to investigate the utility of quantitative ultrasonographic (QUS) parameters derived from radio frequency (RF) signals for the assessment of muscle quality and quantity.
methodsA total of 200 hospitalized patients (102 men, 98 women; mean age: 59.11 ± 27.58 years) were prospectively enrolled in the study. Their skeletal muscle density (SMD) and skeletal muscle index (SMI) were calculated from computed tomography images, as the gold-standard methods of evaluating muscle quality and quantity, respectively. At the L3 vertebral level, the paraspinal muscle (PSM) thickness was measured by ultrasound, and the RF signals of the PSM were recorded, from which QUS parameters were obtained. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify independent predictors of SMD and SMI. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to evaluate the predictive performance of combination of parameters for low SMD and low SMI.
resultsThe RF signals-based QUS parameters MusQBOX.NNM(C), MusQBOX.NNM(L), MusQBOX.Nα(C), and MusQBOX.NK(L) were identified as independent predictors of low SMD (all P < 0.05). The PSM thickness and the parameter MUSQBOX.NMI(L) were independent predictors of low SMI (both P < 0.05). The combination of MusQBOX.NNM(C), MusQBOX.NNM(L), MusQBOX.Nα(C), and MusQBOX.NK(L) had high diagnostic efficiency in the prediction of low SMD [area under the curve (AUC): 0.899 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.852-0.945), P < 0.001]. In addition, the combination of PSM thickness and MUSQBOX.NMI(L) showed moderate efficacy for the prediction of low SMI [AUC: 0.779 (95% CI 0.714-0.836), P < 0.001].
conclusionsThe RF signals-based QUS parameters derived from PSM are effective means of assessing both low SMD and low SMI and provide an alternative noninvasive method of evaluating muscle quality and quantity.
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.