两种基于超声的髌骨肌腱刚度评估方法的并发有效性和内部可靠性。

IF 0.7 Q4 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Ultrasound Pub Date : 2022-02-01 Epub Date: 2021-02-21 DOI:10.1177/1742271X21994609
P Henriksen, K Brage, T Junge, B Juul-Kristensen, J Bojsen-Møller, J B Thorlund
{"title":"两种基于超声的髌骨肌腱刚度评估方法的并发有效性和内部可靠性。","authors":"P Henriksen,&nbsp;K Brage,&nbsp;T Junge,&nbsp;B Juul-Kristensen,&nbsp;J Bojsen-Møller,&nbsp;J B Thorlund","doi":"10.1177/1742271X21994609","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Assessment of tendon stiffness in vivo traditionally involves maximal muscle contractions, which can be challenging in pain populations. Alternative methods are suggested, although the clinimetric properties are sparse. This study investigated the concurrent validity and the intrarater reliability of two ultrasound-based methods for assessing patellar tendon stiffness.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patellar tendon stiffness was assessed in 17 healthy adults with (a) the dynamometer and B-mode ultrasonography method (DBUS) and (b) the strain elastography method. Correlations between the two methods were analysed using Kendall's Tau-b. The relative reliability of both methods was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The absolute reliability was presented by Bland-Altman plots, standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimum detectable change (MDC).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No correlation was found between the two methods, irrespective of reference tissue in strain elastography (Kendall's Tau-b Hoffa = -0.01 (p = 1.00), Kendall's Tau-b subcutis = 0.04 (p = 0.87)). Tracking of the tendon elongation in the DBUS method had good to excellent relative reliability (ICC = 0.95 (95% confidence interval - CI: 0.85-0.98)) and high absolute reliability (SEM = 0.04 mm (1%), MDC = 0.11 mm (3%)). The strain elastography method had good to excellent relative reliability, regardless of reference tissue (ICC Hoffa = 0.95 (95% CI: 0.86-0.98), ICC subcutis = 0.94 (95% CI: 0.82-0.98)), but low absolute reliability (SEM Hoffa = 0.06 (20%), MDC Hoffa = 0.18 (60%), SEM subcutis = 0.12 (41%), MDC subcutis = 0.32 (110%)).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>No concurrent validity existed for DBUS and strain elastography, suggesting that the two methods measure different tendon properties. The overall reliability for the DBUS method was high, but the absolute reliability was low for strain elastography stiffness ratios. Therefore, the strain elastography method may not be recommended for tracking differences in patellar tendon stiffness in healthy adults.</p>","PeriodicalId":23440,"journal":{"name":"Ultrasound","volume":" ","pages":"18-27"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1742271X21994609","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Concurrent validity and intrarater reliability of two ultrasound-based methods for assessing patellar tendon stiffness.\",\"authors\":\"P Henriksen,&nbsp;K Brage,&nbsp;T Junge,&nbsp;B Juul-Kristensen,&nbsp;J Bojsen-Møller,&nbsp;J B Thorlund\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1742271X21994609\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Assessment of tendon stiffness in vivo traditionally involves maximal muscle contractions, which can be challenging in pain populations. Alternative methods are suggested, although the clinimetric properties are sparse. This study investigated the concurrent validity and the intrarater reliability of two ultrasound-based methods for assessing patellar tendon stiffness.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patellar tendon stiffness was assessed in 17 healthy adults with (a) the dynamometer and B-mode ultrasonography method (DBUS) and (b) the strain elastography method. Correlations between the two methods were analysed using Kendall's Tau-b. The relative reliability of both methods was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The absolute reliability was presented by Bland-Altman plots, standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimum detectable change (MDC).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No correlation was found between the two methods, irrespective of reference tissue in strain elastography (Kendall's Tau-b Hoffa = -0.01 (p = 1.00), Kendall's Tau-b subcutis = 0.04 (p = 0.87)). Tracking of the tendon elongation in the DBUS method had good to excellent relative reliability (ICC = 0.95 (95% confidence interval - CI: 0.85-0.98)) and high absolute reliability (SEM = 0.04 mm (1%), MDC = 0.11 mm (3%)). The strain elastography method had good to excellent relative reliability, regardless of reference tissue (ICC Hoffa = 0.95 (95% CI: 0.86-0.98), ICC subcutis = 0.94 (95% CI: 0.82-0.98)), but low absolute reliability (SEM Hoffa = 0.06 (20%), MDC Hoffa = 0.18 (60%), SEM subcutis = 0.12 (41%), MDC subcutis = 0.32 (110%)).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>No concurrent validity existed for DBUS and strain elastography, suggesting that the two methods measure different tendon properties. The overall reliability for the DBUS method was high, but the absolute reliability was low for strain elastography stiffness ratios. Therefore, the strain elastography method may not be recommended for tracking differences in patellar tendon stiffness in healthy adults.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23440,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ultrasound\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"18-27\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1742271X21994609\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ultrasound\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1742271X21994609\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/2/21 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ultrasound","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1742271X21994609","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/2/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

简介:评估肌腱僵硬在体内传统涉及最大肌肉收缩,这可能是具有挑战性的疼痛人群。虽然临床性质稀疏,但建议采用替代方法。本研究探讨了两种基于超声的髌骨肌腱刚度评估方法的并发有效性和内部可靠性。方法:采用(a)测力仪和b型超声法(DBUS)和(b)应变弹性法对17例健康成人髌骨肌腱刚度进行评估。使用Kendall's Tau-b分析两种方法之间的相关性。采用类内相关系数(ICC)评价两种方法的相对信度。绝对信度由Bland-Altman图、测量标准误差(SEM)和最小可检测变化(MDC)表示。结果:两种方法在应变弹性成像中均无相关性(Kendall's Tau-b Hoffa = -0.01 (p = 1.00), Kendall's Tau-b subcutis = 0.04 (p = 0.87))。DBUS方法对肌腱伸长的跟踪具有良好至优异的相对可靠性(ICC = 0.95(95%置信区间- CI: 0.85-0.98))和高绝对可靠性(SEM = 0.04 mm (1%), MDC = 0.11 mm(3%))。应变弹性成像方法在不同参考组织中均具有良好至优异的相对可靠性(ICC Hoffa = 0.95 (95% CI: 0.86-0.98), ICC皮下= 0.94 (95% CI: 0.82-0.98)),但绝对可靠性较低(SEM Hoffa = 0.06 (20%), MDC Hoffa = 0.18 (60%), SEM皮下= 0.12 (41%),MDC皮下= 0.32(110%))。结论:DBUS和应变弹性图不存在同时有效性,这表明两种方法测量的肌腱特性不同。DBUS方法的总体可靠性较高,但应变弹性刚度比的绝对可靠性较低。因此,应变弹性成像方法可能不推荐用于跟踪健康成人髌骨肌腱僵硬度的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Concurrent validity and intrarater reliability of two ultrasound-based methods for assessing patellar tendon stiffness.

Concurrent validity and intrarater reliability of two ultrasound-based methods for assessing patellar tendon stiffness.

Concurrent validity and intrarater reliability of two ultrasound-based methods for assessing patellar tendon stiffness.

Concurrent validity and intrarater reliability of two ultrasound-based methods for assessing patellar tendon stiffness.

Introduction: Assessment of tendon stiffness in vivo traditionally involves maximal muscle contractions, which can be challenging in pain populations. Alternative methods are suggested, although the clinimetric properties are sparse. This study investigated the concurrent validity and the intrarater reliability of two ultrasound-based methods for assessing patellar tendon stiffness.

Methods: Patellar tendon stiffness was assessed in 17 healthy adults with (a) the dynamometer and B-mode ultrasonography method (DBUS) and (b) the strain elastography method. Correlations between the two methods were analysed using Kendall's Tau-b. The relative reliability of both methods was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The absolute reliability was presented by Bland-Altman plots, standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimum detectable change (MDC).

Results: No correlation was found between the two methods, irrespective of reference tissue in strain elastography (Kendall's Tau-b Hoffa = -0.01 (p = 1.00), Kendall's Tau-b subcutis = 0.04 (p = 0.87)). Tracking of the tendon elongation in the DBUS method had good to excellent relative reliability (ICC = 0.95 (95% confidence interval - CI: 0.85-0.98)) and high absolute reliability (SEM = 0.04 mm (1%), MDC = 0.11 mm (3%)). The strain elastography method had good to excellent relative reliability, regardless of reference tissue (ICC Hoffa = 0.95 (95% CI: 0.86-0.98), ICC subcutis = 0.94 (95% CI: 0.82-0.98)), but low absolute reliability (SEM Hoffa = 0.06 (20%), MDC Hoffa = 0.18 (60%), SEM subcutis = 0.12 (41%), MDC subcutis = 0.32 (110%)).

Conclusions: No concurrent validity existed for DBUS and strain elastography, suggesting that the two methods measure different tendon properties. The overall reliability for the DBUS method was high, but the absolute reliability was low for strain elastography stiffness ratios. Therefore, the strain elastography method may not be recommended for tracking differences in patellar tendon stiffness in healthy adults.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ultrasound
Ultrasound RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
55
期刊介绍: Ultrasound is the official journal of the British Medical Ultrasound Society (BMUS), a multidisciplinary, charitable society comprising radiologists, obstetricians, sonographers, physicists and veterinarians amongst others.
×
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