Interrater and Intrarater Reliability of Transverse Abdominal and Lumbar Multifidus Muscle Thickness in Subjects With and Without Low Back Pain

Djordjevic, Olivera; Djordjević, Aleksandar; Konstantinović, Ljubica

doi:10.2519/jospt.2014.5141

Cited by 42 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The USI methods used in this study to assess TrA thickness and AR had acceptable to excellent reliability in all 4 positions assessed for healthy participants. The tabletop reliability for the AR mirrored results from previous studies [10,13,14] with strong reliability, as well as in the seated and standing positions for the TrA. The addition of the walking task and the reliability consistency within that position bolsters the current literature and sets up future studies that could examine TrA activation in a more functional position.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 68%

Reliability of Ultrasound Imaging Measures of Transverse Abdominis and Lumbar Multifidus in Various Positions

Mangum

Sutherlin

Saliba

et al. 2015

PM&R

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 68%

Reliability of Ultrasound Imaging Measures of Transverse Abdominis and Lumbar Multifidus in Various Positions

Mangum

Sutherlin

Saliba

et al. 2015

PM&R

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Of high‐quality studies, McPherson and Watson (ICC, 0.62–0.93) and Ehsani et al (ICC, 0.63–0.99) reported intra‐rater reliability ICCs that were less than 0.70. The ICCs reported for inter‐rater reliability in high‐quality studies were greater than 0.70 (0.71–1.00), except for Hoppes et al (0.39–0.79). Also, among low‐quality studies, reported ICCs for intra‐ and inter‐rater reliability ranged from 0.26 to 0.99 and 0.68 to 0.97, respectively.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…As shown in Table , the scores of the included studies ranged from 10% to 90%. Also, 16 of 26 reviewed studies (marked a in Table ) obtained a score of 50% or greater and were deemed to be high‐quality articles …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Among the included articles, 12 studies evaluated the reliability of rehabilitative US imaging in healthy individuals . Five studies evaluated the reliability in patients with LBP, and 9 studies reported the reliability for both healthy individuals and those with LBP . The range of inter‐ and intra‐rater reliability for each muscle is summarized in Table .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Among the included studies that measured abdominal muscle thickness, 14 studies used linear transducers, and 8 studies used curvilinear transducers with frequencies of 5–10 MHz (commonly 7.5) and 2–5 MHz, respectively. Also, curvilinear transducers were applied in all studies that measured lumbar multifidus thickness or cross‐sectional area, except 1 study, that used a linear transducer. The most commonly used frequencies for measurement of the lumbar multifidus were 5 and 7.5 MHz …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Reliability of Real‐time Ultrasound Imaging for the Assessment of Trunk Stabilizer Muscles: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Taghipour

Mohseni-Bandpei

Behzadnia

et al. 2018

J of Ultrasound Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rehabilitative ultrasound (US) imaging is one of the popular methods for investigating muscle morphologic characteristics and dimensions in recent years. The reliability of this method has been investigated in different studies. As studies have been performed with different designs and quality, reported values of rehabilitative US have a wide range. The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature conducted on the reliability of rehabilitative US imaging for the assessment of deep abdominal and lumbar trunk muscle dimensions. The PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Google Scholar, Science Direct, Embase, Physiotherapy Evidence, Ovid, and CINAHL databases were searched to identify original research articles conducted on the reliability of rehabilitative US imaging published from June 2007 to August 2017. The articles were qualitatively assessed; reliability data were extracted; and the methodological quality was evaluated by 2 independent reviewers. Of the 26 included studies, 16 were considered of high methodological quality. Except for 2 studies, all high-quality studies reported intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for intra-rater reliability of 0.70 or greater. Also, ICCs reported for inter-rater reliability in high-quality studies were generally greater than 0.70. Among low-quality studies, reported ICCs ranged from 0.26 to 0.99 and 0.68 to 0.97 for intra- and inter-rater reliability, respectively. Also, the reported standard error of measurement and minimal detectable change for rehabilitative US were generally in an acceptable range. Generally, the results of the reviewed studies indicate that rehabilitative US imaging has good levels of both inter- and intra-rater reliability.

show abstract

Reliability of lumbar multifidus and iliocostalis lumborum thickness and echogenicity measurements using ultrasound imaging

Farragher

Pranata

El-Ansary

et al. 2021

Australas J Ultrason Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To establish the test-retest and inter-rater reliability of lumbar multifidus (LM) and iliocostalis lumborum (IL) muscle thickness and echogenicity as derived using ultrasound imaging. Methods: Ultrasound images of the LM and IL were collected from 11 healthy participants on two occasions, 1 week apart, by two independent assessors. Measures of LM and IL thickness and echogenicity were subject to test-retest and inter-rater reliability, which was assessed by calculation of an F statistic, the interclass correlation coefficient (ICC), the standard error of measurement, 95% confidence intervals and Bland-Altman plots. This study was given approval by The University of Melbourne Behavioural and Social Sciences Human Ethics Sub-Committee (ref: 1749845). Results: Assessors A and B showed good to excellent test-retest reliability for LM thickness (ICC 3,3 A: 0.89 and B: 0.98), LM echogenicity (ICC 3,3 A: 0.93 and B: 0.95) and IL echogenicity (ICC 3,3 A: 0.87 and B: 0.83). Test-retest reliability for IL thickness was poor for Assessor A but excellent for Assessor B. Both assessors demonstrated excellent inter-rater reliability for LM thickness and echogenicity (ICC 2,3 : 0.79 and 0.94), but poor reliability for IL thickness and echogenicity (ICC 2,3 : 0.00 and 0.39). Conclusions: Inter-rater and test-retest reliability was excellent for LM but was less reliable for measures of the IL muscle.

show abstract

Interrater and Intrarater Reliability of Transverse Abdominal and Lumbar Multifidus Muscle Thickness in Subjects With and Without Low Back Pain

Cited by 42 publications

References 45 publications

Reliability of Ultrasound Imaging Measures of Transverse Abdominis and Lumbar Multifidus in Various Positions

Reliability of Ultrasound Imaging Measures of Transverse Abdominis and Lumbar Multifidus in Various Positions

Reliability of Real‐time Ultrasound Imaging for the Assessment of Trunk Stabilizer Muscles: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Reliability of lumbar multifidus and iliocostalis lumborum thickness and echogenicity measurements using ultrasound imaging

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About