Rehabilitative ultrasound imaging is a valid measure of trunk muscle size and activation during most isometric sub-maximal contractions: a systematic review

Shane L. Koppenhaver , Jeffrey J. Hebert , Eric C. Parent , Julie M. Fritz
{"title":"Rehabilitative ultrasound imaging is a valid measure of trunk muscle size and activation during most isometric sub-maximal contractions: a systematic review","authors":"Shane L. Koppenhaver ,&nbsp;Jeffrey J. Hebert ,&nbsp;Eric C. Parent ,&nbsp;Julie M. Fritz","doi":"10.1016/S0004-9514(09)70076-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Questions</h3><p>Is rehabilitative ultrasound imaging a valid measure of trunk muscle size and activation? Are rehabilitative ultrasound imaging measures sensitive to change?</p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>Systematic review of studies of criterion-related validity, construct validity, and sensitivity to change.</p></div><div><h3>Participants</h3><p>People with low back pain and asymptomatic controls.</p></div><div><h3>Outcome measure</h3><p>Trunk muscle size and activation measured by rehabilitative ultrasound imaging, MRI and/or EMG.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>37 studies were included. 10 studies investigated criterion-related validity and provided evidence that while ultrasound may be a valid measure of trunk muscle size, the validity of ultrasound to quantify muscle activation is context-dependent, depending on the muscle involved, the contraction strategy utilised, and the intensity of muscle contraction. 23 studies provided evidence of construct validity by demonstrating the ability of ultrasound measurement to differentiate individuals in terms of back pain, anthropometry, and postures. Six studies contained a limited amount of information about sensitivity to change.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>It is valid to use rehabilitative ultrasound imaging to measure trunk muscle size and activation during most isometric sub-maximal contractions. Ultrasound measures appear sensitive to both positive and negative change.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50086,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Physiotherapy","volume":"55 3","pages":"Pages 153-169"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S0004-9514(09)70076-5","citationCount":"145","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Physiotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0004951409700765","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 145

Abstract

Questions

Is rehabilitative ultrasound imaging a valid measure of trunk muscle size and activation? Are rehabilitative ultrasound imaging measures sensitive to change?

Design

Systematic review of studies of criterion-related validity, construct validity, and sensitivity to change.

Participants

People with low back pain and asymptomatic controls.

Outcome measure

Trunk muscle size and activation measured by rehabilitative ultrasound imaging, MRI and/or EMG.

Results

37 studies were included. 10 studies investigated criterion-related validity and provided evidence that while ultrasound may be a valid measure of trunk muscle size, the validity of ultrasound to quantify muscle activation is context-dependent, depending on the muscle involved, the contraction strategy utilised, and the intensity of muscle contraction. 23 studies provided evidence of construct validity by demonstrating the ability of ultrasound measurement to differentiate individuals in terms of back pain, anthropometry, and postures. Six studies contained a limited amount of information about sensitivity to change.

Conclusions

It is valid to use rehabilitative ultrasound imaging to measure trunk muscle size and activation during most isometric sub-maximal contractions. Ultrasound measures appear sensitive to both positive and negative change.

康复超声成像是一个有效的测量躯干肌肉的大小和激活在大多数等长次最大收缩:系统回顾
康复超声成像是躯干肌肉大小和激活的有效测量吗?康复超声成像措施对变化敏感吗?设计系统回顾标准相关效度、构念效度和变化敏感性的研究。参与者为腰痛且无症状控制者。结果测量:通过康复超声成像、MRI和/或肌电图测量躯干肌肉大小和激活。结果共纳入37项研究。10项研究调查了标准相关的有效性,并提供了证据,尽管超声可能是躯干肌肉大小的有效测量,但超声量化肌肉激活的有效性取决于环境,取决于所涉及的肌肉、所采用的收缩策略和肌肉收缩强度。23项研究通过证明超声测量在背痛、人体测量和姿势方面区分个体的能力,为结构效度提供了证据。六项研究包含了有限数量的关于变化敏感性的信息。结论康复超声成像测量躯干肌的大小和活动在大多数等长次极大收缩时是有效的。超声测量对阳性和阴性变化都很敏感。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信