Reproducibility and feasibility of a handheld ultrasound device compared to a standard ultrasound machine in muscle thickness measurements

Abdulrahman M. Alfuraih, Mohammed A. Alqarni, Hamad S. Alhuthaili, Meshal Y. Mubaraki, Nader N. Alotaibi, Fahad M. Almusalim
{"title":"Reproducibility and feasibility of a handheld ultrasound device compared to a standard ultrasound machine in muscle thickness measurements","authors":"Abdulrahman M. Alfuraih,&nbsp;Mohammed A. Alqarni,&nbsp;Hamad S. Alhuthaili,&nbsp;Meshal Y. Mubaraki,&nbsp;Nader N. Alotaibi,&nbsp;Fahad M. Almusalim","doi":"10.1002/ajum.12333","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>To test the feasibility and reproducibility of a handheld ultrasound device (HUD) compared to a standard ultrasound machine for muscle thickness measurements in healthy participants.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A prospective cross-sectional study was designed where two novice operators tested the thickness of the vastus lateralis, rectus femoris, and vastus intermedius muscles on recruited asymptomatic participants with no history of muscle diseases. The anterior–posterior thickness of each muscle was measured three times per operator to evaluate intra-operator reproducibility and using two machines to evaluate inter-system reproducibility. Scanning started using the HUD followed by the standard system. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and simple linear regression were used to test for reproducibility and proportional bias respectively.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>A total of 33 male participants volunteered to take part in this study with a mean age of 22.7 years (6.8). Intra-operator reproducibility was almost perfect for both operators on both machines (ICC &gt; 0.80). The measurements difference percentage between the machines ranged from 1.8% to 6.6% and inter-system reproducibility ICC ranged from 0.815 to 0.927 showing excellent reproducibility. Inter-operator reproducibility was poor to moderate on both machines (ICC: 0.522–0.849). Regression analysis showed no proportional bias in the measurements. All measurements were completed successfully using the HUD.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>The HUD demonstrated excellent accuracy compared to the standard ultrasound machine for measuring thigh muscle thickness.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":36517,"journal":{"name":"Australasian Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine","volume":"26 1","pages":"13-20"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ajum.12333","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australasian Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajum.12333","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Objective

To test the feasibility and reproducibility of a handheld ultrasound device (HUD) compared to a standard ultrasound machine for muscle thickness measurements in healthy participants.

Methods

A prospective cross-sectional study was designed where two novice operators tested the thickness of the vastus lateralis, rectus femoris, and vastus intermedius muscles on recruited asymptomatic participants with no history of muscle diseases. The anterior–posterior thickness of each muscle was measured three times per operator to evaluate intra-operator reproducibility and using two machines to evaluate inter-system reproducibility. Scanning started using the HUD followed by the standard system. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and simple linear regression were used to test for reproducibility and proportional bias respectively.

Results

A total of 33 male participants volunteered to take part in this study with a mean age of 22.7 years (6.8). Intra-operator reproducibility was almost perfect for both operators on both machines (ICC > 0.80). The measurements difference percentage between the machines ranged from 1.8% to 6.6% and inter-system reproducibility ICC ranged from 0.815 to 0.927 showing excellent reproducibility. Inter-operator reproducibility was poor to moderate on both machines (ICC: 0.522–0.849). Regression analysis showed no proportional bias in the measurements. All measurements were completed successfully using the HUD.

Conclusion

The HUD demonstrated excellent accuracy compared to the standard ultrasound machine for measuring thigh muscle thickness.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
手持式超声设备与标准超声设备在肌肉厚度测量中的重复性和可行性比较
目的比较手持式超声仪(HUD)与标准超声仪测量健康人肌肉厚度的可行性和重复性。方法设计了一项前瞻性横断面研究,两名新手操作人员对招募的无肌肉疾病史的无症状参与者测量股外侧肌、股直肌和股中间肌的厚度。每个操作人员测量每块肌肉的前后厚度三次,以评估操作人员内部的可重复性,并使用两台机器评估系统间的可重复性。扫描开始使用HUD,然后是标准系统。用类内相关系数(ICC)和简单线性回归分别检验再现性和比例偏倚。结果33名男性自愿参加本研究,平均年龄22.7岁(6.8岁)。对于两台机器上的两个操作人员来说,操作人员内部的再现性几乎是完美的(ICC > 0.80)。仪器间测量值差异百分比为1.8% ~ 6.6%,系统间重现性ICC为0.815 ~ 0.927,重现性良好。在两台机器上,操作人员之间的重复性较差至中等(ICC: 0.522-0.849)。回归分析显示测量结果无比例偏倚。所有测量均通过HUD成功完成。结论与常规超声仪相比,HUD测量大腿肌肉厚度具有较好的准确性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Australasian Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine
Australasian Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
40
期刊最新文献
Issue Information The impact of ultrasound imaging on patient management – Let's practice the evidence EUS‐guided tissue acquisition from gastric subepithelial lesions—The optimal technique still remains undecided Ultrasound‐assisted and landmark‐based nusinersen delivery in spinal muscular atrophy adults: A retrospective analysis Cutaneous ultrasound in the diagnosis and assessment of inflammatory activity in tinea capitis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1