A Systematic Review of the Reliability of Rehabilitative Ultrasound Imaging for the Quantitative Assessment of the Abdominal and Lumbar Trunk Muscles

Hébert, Jeffrey J.; Koppenhaver, Shane; Parent, Éric; Fritz, Julie M.

doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e3181ae625c

Cited by 150 publications

(135 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

124

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The findings of a recent review of literature 7 are consistent with the results of the present present study. These factors include position of the participant, pattern of breathing, identification of landmarks, probe location, probe orientation, and averaging data from 2 trials.…”

supporting

confidence: 83%

“…19 Several researchers have reported that intrarater and interrater reliability of USI measurements of TrA at rest and during contraction are good, with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) ranging between 0.79 to 0.99 and 0.98 to 0.99, respectively. 4,5,7,10,11,14,17,18,[23][24][25]27,29,31,33,34 Furthermore, within-day intrarater reliability of changes in TrA thickness in patients with LBP have also been reported to be good (ICC = 0.94). However, betweenday intrarater reliability for this population has been lower (ICC = 0.73).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Although, the ICCs for between-day intrarater reliability of T from the left side was only moderate to poor, the SEMs for both sides (0.4 mm) were nearly identical, due to the smaller standard deviation value from the left side. Although many studies have demonstrated good reliability of the measurement of thickness (Thr and Thm) of TrA, 7 Koppenhaver et al 18 have reported within-day intrarater reliability of the measurement of percent change in thickness (T/Thr) of TrA (ICC = 0.73) in patients with LBP during ADIM. 17 Furthermore, the reliability for percent change in thickness (T/Thr) in the present study was excellent for the right TrA (ICC = 0.88) but only moderate to poor for the left TrA (ICC = 0.49).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Reliability and Relationship Between 2 Measurements of Transversus Abdominis Dimension Taken During an Abdominal Drawing-in Maneuver Using a Novel Approach of Ultrasound Imaging

Jhu

Chai²,

Jan³

et al. 2010

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

supporting

confidence: 83%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 96%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reliability and Relationship Between 2 Measurements of Transversus Abdominis Dimension Taken During an Abdominal Drawing-in Maneuver Using a Novel Approach of Ultrasound Imaging

Jhu

Chai²,

Jan³

et al. 2010

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…There was no significant difference in the reliability estimates between asymptomatic and LBP participants across most testing conditions. Although prior studies have investigated the within-and between-day reliability estimates of static RUSI in measuring LM thickness, most of them were limited by (1) a small sample size, 37 (2) measuring muscle thickness at rest and not while contracted, 37 (3) failure to report the repeatability of percent thickness change over time, 6,12,23,24 or (4) not comparing individuals with and without LBP. Our study aimed to address these limitations and to quantify the intrarater reliability of static RUSI and video RUSI by recruiting individuals with and without LBP.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…8,29 Minimal detectable change at the 95% confidence level (MDC 95 ) was calculated (1.96 × 2 × SEM) to indicate the minimal change in thickness or in percent thickness change that could be observed with 95% confidence that the observed difference exceeded measurement error. 12 Further, relative MDC 95 was calculated by dividing the MDC 95 by its corresponding mean muscle thickness or mean percent thickness change to allow comparisons with other reliability studies. The a priori significance level for all tests was set at .05.…”

Section: Statistical Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability of 2 Ultrasonic Imaging Analysis Methods in Quantifying Lumbar Multifidus Thickness

Wong¹,

Parent²,

Kawchuk³

2013

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The lumbar multifidus (LM) muscle plays a crucial role in maintaining segmental lumbar stability and preventing recurrence of low back pain (LBP). 17,27,42 Studies have shown that patients with acute or chronic LBP have localized LM atrophy and reduced voluntary LM muscle contraction ipsilateral to the side of symptoms.14,17,38 Unfortunately, the resolution of LBP is not accompanied with spontaneous recovery in the function and morphology of the LM muscle, unless appropriate exercises are prescribed. 16,27 To evaluate the function of the LM muscle and to monitor the progress of treatment, a costeffective, noninvasive clinical assessment tool is needed.Brightness-mode (B-mode) rehabilitative ultrasound imaging (RUSI) has been advocated as a valid noninvasive tool to evaluate the size and dynamic behavior of trunk muscles 40 and to provide real-time feedback to LBP patients during motor control training. 24,35 Research has demonstrated measurement agreement of LM muscle thickness by RUSI and by magnetic resonance imaging. 15Indwelling electromyography studies have also validated the correlation between the myoelectric activity of the LM and the change in geometry of the LM as measured by RUSI. 21,36 Clinically, the role of RUSI biofeedback in facilitating LM muscle recruitment in patients with LBP during back-stabilizing exercises has been demonstrated. 13,16,24,35,40 To measure LM muscle thickness T T STUDY DESIGN: Reliability study. T T OBJECTIVES:To compare the within-and between-day intrarater reliability of rehabilitative ultrasound imaging (RUSI) using static images (static RUSI) and video clips (video RUSI) to quantify multifidus muscle thickness at rest and while contracted. Secondary objectives were to compare the measurement precision of averaging multiple measures and to estimate reliability in individuals with and without low back pain (LBP). T T BACKGROUND:Although intrarater reliability of static RUSI in measuring multifidus thickness has been established, using video RUSI may improve reliability estimates, as it allows examiners to select the optimal image from a video clip. Further, multiple measurements and LBP status may affect RUSI reliability estimates. T T METHODS:Static RUSI and video RUSI were used to quantify multifidus muscle thickness at rest and during contraction and percent thickness change in 27 volunteers (13 without LBP and 14 with LBP). Three static RUSI images and 3 video RUSI video clips were collected in each of 2 sessions 1 to 4 days apart. Reliability and precision were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients, standard error of measurement, minimal detectable change, bias, and 95% limits of agreement. T T RESULTS:Using an average of 2 measures yielded optimal measurement precision for static RUSI and video RUSI. Based on the average of 2 measures obtained under the same circumstance, there was no significant difference in the reliability estimates between static RUSI and video RUSI across all testing conditions. Reliability point estimates (intraclass correlation co...

show abstract

Inter‐rater reliability and variability of ultrasound measurements of abdominal muscles and fasciae thickness

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ultrasound (US) imaging is being increasingly used by Physical and RehabilitationMedicine (PRM) specialists to measure the thickness of abdominal muscles. The current study set out to assess the inter-rater reliability of US measurements of the thickness of the abdominal muscles/fasciae. Three raters (1 = orthopedic specialist, expert on fasciae; 2 = PRM resident; 3 = PRM specialist) with different levels of US training examined the abdominal muscles and fasciae of a healthy volunteer under supine resting and dynamic conditions following a standard US protocol. The probe was positioned along the right lateral abdominal wall at the height of the 12th rib: (1) above the umbilicus at the linea alba, (2) to the side of and approximately 2 cm from the umbilicus, (3) along the mammillary line, and (4) along the anterior axillary line. Each rater measured 17 anatomical structures six times during two sessions. The relative error of the measurements (intra-rater variability) was slightly higher for the fasciae than for the muscles, and during the dynamic condition than the resting condition. Inter-rater reliability was good under both conditions for the fasciae (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient = ICC = 0.83) and excellent for the muscles (ICC = 0.99). Knowledge of the fascial anatomy of the abdominal wall is essential for accurate ultrasound examinations and for improving reliability. These findings confirm that US imaging is a reliable, non-invasive, cost-effective instrument for evaluating the abdominal muscles/ fasciae. Clin. Anat. 32:948-960, 2019.

show abstract

A Systematic Review of the Reliability of Rehabilitative Ultrasound Imaging for the Quantitative Assessment of the Abdominal and Lumbar Trunk Muscles

Cited by 150 publications

References 52 publications

Reliability and Relationship Between 2 Measurements of Transversus Abdominis Dimension Taken During an Abdominal Drawing-in Maneuver Using a Novel Approach of Ultrasound Imaging

Reliability and Relationship Between 2 Measurements of Transversus Abdominis Dimension Taken During an Abdominal Drawing-in Maneuver Using a Novel Approach of Ultrasound Imaging

Reliability of 2 Ultrasonic Imaging Analysis Methods in Quantifying Lumbar Multifidus Thickness

Inter‐rater reliability and variability of ultrasound measurements of abdominal muscles and fasciae thickness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About