ArticlePloS one2026
Reliability and criterion validity of abductor hallucis muscle volume measurements using ultrasound and MRI by assessors with limited image analysis experience.
Article in PloS one, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe abductor hallucis (ABDH) contributes to foot function and mobility, which can influence quality of life, making accurate assessment of muscle volume important. While magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is often considered to be the reference standard of medical imaging, ultrasound (US) provides a cost-effective, rapid and dynamic way of assessing muscle size and function. This study aimed to evaluate the criterion validity and intrarater reliability of US-derived ABDH muscle volume measurements compared with MRI when image analysis was performed by assessors with limited experience.
methodsUs And MRI were employed to measure the right and left ABDH muscle volume involving 22 participants (females = 12; males = 10). Following exclusions, 37 feet were available for analysis, with 36 complete MRI-US observations. Muscle volume of the ABDH was calculated across the muscle belly every 0.5 cm both manually by utilizing a truncated cone (TC) formula and with a semi-automated tool in the OsiriX (OX) software. Intrarater reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), standard error of measurement (SEm), and minimal detectable change (MDC). Criterion validity was evaluated using Pearson correlations, Bland-Altman analyses, and two one-sided tests (TOST) with a determined ±10% equivalence margin.
resultsSide-specific intrarater reliability was high across methods (ICC(3,1) = 0.932-0.997), with SEm values of 0.251-0.709 cm³ and relative MDC values of 4.48%-12.95%. Very strong associations were observed among methods (r = 0.906-0.995). Bland-Altman limits-of-agreement half-widths were 6.52%-9.84% for MRI-MRI and 17.86%-27.35% for MRI-US comparisons. All three method comparisons met the ± 10% equivalence criterion.
conclusionUS-derived ABDH volume measurements demonstrated high intrarater reliability and statistical equivalence to MRI within the ± 10% margin. Although MRI-US comparisons showed greater individual-level variability than MRI-MRI comparisons, US may provide a practical alternative for assessing ABDH muscle volume when MRI is impractical.
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.