ArticleCureus2025
Comparison of Geniohyoid Muscle Morphology Assessment Using Conventional and Handheld Ultrasound Devices.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Quantitative assessment of geniohyoid before and after rehabilitation in stroke patients with dysphagia by ultrasound.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPoint-of-care ultrasound has recently gained attention for enabling simple and immediate bedside assessments of swallowing function. In particular, handheld ultrasound devices (HHUDs) are more suitable than conventional ultrasound imaging systems (UISs) in community and home settings due to their portability. The geniohyoid muscle (GM) plays a crucial role in swallowing by contributing to hyolaryngeal elevation, and its dysfunction has been associated with aspiration risk. Therefore, ultrasound assessment of the GM provides clinically important information for evaluating swallowing function. This study aimed to evaluate GM morphology using a UIS and an HHUD and to investigate the relative and absolute reliability, as well as the correlation between the two devices.
methodsGM morphology was assessed using a UIS and an HHUD by measuring the longitudinal diameter, longitudinal cross-sectional area, transverse vertical diameter, transverse lateral diameter, transverse cross-sectional area, and contraction percentage. Relative reliability was calculated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs(1,3)), while absolute reliability was evaluated via Bland-Altman analysis to detect fixed and proportional bias. Pearson correlation coefficients and paired t-tests were used to compare measurements between devices.
resultsHigh intrarater reliability (ICC > 0.9) was observed for all parameters except the contraction percentage. Bland-Altman analysis indicated fixed bias in longitudinal and transverse measurements. All parameters showed significant positive correlations between the UIS and HHUD, although the HHUD consistently yielded significantly smaller values.
conclusionHHUDs can be used for GM morphological assessment; however, clinicians should account for their tendency to produce smaller values compared to UISs. HHUD-based evaluation of the GM may have future applications in assessing sarcopenia-related dysphagia in older adults and in home-based clinical settings.
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.