ArticleEuropean journal of sport science2026
Validity and Sensitivity of Extended Field-of-View Wireless Palm-Sized Ultrasonography for Assessing Muscle Hypertrophy.
Article in European journal of sport science, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study evaluated the validity and sensitivity of an extended field-of-view (EFOV) wireless palm-sized ultrasound device for assessing quadriceps femoris cross-sectional area (CSA), using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the reference. Although previous studies have examined EFOV ultrasound, data validating EFOV wireless palm-sized devices against MRI using large cohorts and training interventions have not been reported. In Experiment 1, midthigh CSA was measured in 100 young adults (75 males, 25 females) using ultrasound and MRI. Intra-rater reliability was assessed via intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), standard error of measurement (SEM), coefficient of variation (CV), and smallest detectable change (SDC). In Experiment 2, 11 males underwent an 8-week resistance training program. Pre-to-post changes in CSA (ΔCSA) were compared between the two imaging modalities. In Experiment 1, the device demonstrated excellent reliability for males (ICC = 0.996; SEM = 0.85 cm
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.