The concurrent validity of a portable ultrasound probe for muscle thickness measurements.

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q4 PHYSIOLOGY
Kai A Homer, Matt R Cross, Ivan Jukic
{"title":"The concurrent validity of a portable ultrasound probe for muscle thickness measurements.","authors":"Kai A Homer, Matt R Cross, Ivan Jukic","doi":"10.1111/cpf.12901","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Ultrasound imaging is extensively used by both practitioners and researchers in assessing muscle thickness (MT); however, its use in the field is constrained by the transportability of stationary devices. New portable ultrasound probes pose as a cost-effective and transportable alternative for field-based assessments. This study evaluated the concurrent validity of a portable probe (Lumify) against a laboratory-based device (Vivid S5) in measuring MT. Eighteen participants (nine males and nine females) visited the laboratory and their MT measurements were collected using each device at five different sites (anterior and posterior arm, anterior and posterior thigh, and posterior lower leg). Bland-Altman plots (systematic and proportional bias, random error, and 95% limits of agreement), Pearson's product-moment correlation coefficient (r), and paired samples t-tests with Cohen's d effect sizes (ES) were used to assess the concurrent validity of the Lumify device. Systematic bias was low at all sites ( ≤ 0.11 cm) while proportional bias was detected only at the posterior lower leg (r<sup>2</sup> = 0.217 [r = 0.466]). The difference in MT between devices was significant only at the anterior thigh (p < 0.05); however, ES for all sites were considered trivial (ES ≤ 0.131). Linear associations were found between the devices at each site of measurement (r ≥ 0.95). These results highlight that the Lumify probe can be used interchangeably with the Vivid S5 for MT measurements, providing practitioners and researchers with a more cost-effective and portable alternative for field-based assessments.</p>","PeriodicalId":10504,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cpf.12901","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Ultrasound imaging is extensively used by both practitioners and researchers in assessing muscle thickness (MT); however, its use in the field is constrained by the transportability of stationary devices. New portable ultrasound probes pose as a cost-effective and transportable alternative for field-based assessments. This study evaluated the concurrent validity of a portable probe (Lumify) against a laboratory-based device (Vivid S5) in measuring MT. Eighteen participants (nine males and nine females) visited the laboratory and their MT measurements were collected using each device at five different sites (anterior and posterior arm, anterior and posterior thigh, and posterior lower leg). Bland-Altman plots (systematic and proportional bias, random error, and 95% limits of agreement), Pearson's product-moment correlation coefficient (r), and paired samples t-tests with Cohen's d effect sizes (ES) were used to assess the concurrent validity of the Lumify device. Systematic bias was low at all sites ( ≤ 0.11 cm) while proportional bias was detected only at the posterior lower leg (r2 = 0.217 [r = 0.466]). The difference in MT between devices was significant only at the anterior thigh (p < 0.05); however, ES for all sites were considered trivial (ES ≤ 0.131). Linear associations were found between the devices at each site of measurement (r ≥ 0.95). These results highlight that the Lumify probe can be used interchangeably with the Vivid S5 for MT measurements, providing practitioners and researchers with a more cost-effective and portable alternative for field-based assessments.

用于测量肌肉厚度的便携式超声波探头的并发有效性。
超声波成像被从业人员和研究人员广泛用于评估肌肉厚度(MT);然而,由于固定设备的可运输性,超声波成像在现场的使用受到限制。新型便携式超声探头为现场评估提供了一种具有成本效益且便于携带的替代方法。本研究评估了便携式探头(Lumify)与实验室设备(Vivid S5)在测量肌肉密度方面的并行有效性。18 名参与者(9 名男性和 9 名女性)参观了实验室,并在 5 个不同部位(手臂前侧和后侧、大腿前侧和后侧以及小腿后侧)使用每种设备收集了 MT 测量值。使用布兰德-阿尔特曼图(系统偏差和比例偏差、随机误差和 95% 的一致性界限)、皮尔逊积矩相关系数 (r)、配对样本 t 检验和 Cohen's d 效应量 (ES) 来评估 Lumify 设备的并发有效性。所有部位的系统偏差都很低(≤ 0.11 厘米),而仅在小腿后侧发现了比例偏差(r2 = 0.217 [r = 0.466])。不同设备之间的 MT 差异仅在大腿前侧显著(p
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
5.60%
发文量
62
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging publishes reports on clinical and experimental research pertinent to human physiology in health and disease. The scope of the Journal is very broad, covering all aspects of the regulatory system in the cardiovascular, renal and pulmonary systems with special emphasis on methodological aspects. The focus for the journal is, however, work that has potential clinical relevance. The Journal also features review articles on recent front-line research within these fields of interest. Covered by the major abstracting services including Current Contents and Science Citation Index, Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging plays an important role in providing effective and productive communication among clinical physiologists world-wide.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信