Cargando…

The reliability and validity of ultrasound to quantify muscles in older adults: a systematic review

This review evaluates the reliability and validity of ultrasound to quantify muscles in older adults. The databases PubMed, Cochrane, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature were systematically searched for studies. In 17 studies, the reliability (n = 13) and validity (n = 8) of...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nijholt, Willemke, Scafoglieri, Aldo, Jager‐Wittenaar, Harriët, Hobbelen, Johannes S.M., van der Schans, Cees P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5659048/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28703496
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcsm.12210
_version_ 1783274106992459776
author Nijholt, Willemke
Scafoglieri, Aldo
Jager‐Wittenaar, Harriët
Hobbelen, Johannes S.M.
van der Schans, Cees P.
author_facet Nijholt, Willemke
Scafoglieri, Aldo
Jager‐Wittenaar, Harriët
Hobbelen, Johannes S.M.
van der Schans, Cees P.
author_sort Nijholt, Willemke
collection PubMed
description This review evaluates the reliability and validity of ultrasound to quantify muscles in older adults. The databases PubMed, Cochrane, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature were systematically searched for studies. In 17 studies, the reliability (n = 13) and validity (n = 8) of ultrasound to quantify muscles in community‐dwelling older adults (≥60 years) or a clinical population were evaluated. Four out of 13 reliability studies investigated both intra‐rater and inter‐rater reliability. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) scores for reliability ranged from −0.26 to 1.00. The highest ICC scores were found for the vastus lateralis, rectus femoris, upper arm anterior, and the trunk (ICC = 0.72 to 1.000). All included validity studies found ICC scores ranging from 0.92 to 0.999. Two studies describing the validity of ultrasound to predict lean body mass showed good validity as compared with dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry (r (2) = 0.92 to 0.96). This systematic review shows that ultrasound is a reliable and valid tool for the assessment of muscle size in older adults. More high‐quality research is required to confirm these findings in both clinical and healthy populations. Furthermore, ultrasound assessment of small muscles needs further evaluation. Ultrasound to predict lean body mass is feasible; however, future research is required to validate prediction equations in older adults with varying function and health.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5659048
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56590482017-11-01 The reliability and validity of ultrasound to quantify muscles in older adults: a systematic review Nijholt, Willemke Scafoglieri, Aldo Jager‐Wittenaar, Harriët Hobbelen, Johannes S.M. van der Schans, Cees P. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle Reviews This review evaluates the reliability and validity of ultrasound to quantify muscles in older adults. The databases PubMed, Cochrane, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature were systematically searched for studies. In 17 studies, the reliability (n = 13) and validity (n = 8) of ultrasound to quantify muscles in community‐dwelling older adults (≥60 years) or a clinical population were evaluated. Four out of 13 reliability studies investigated both intra‐rater and inter‐rater reliability. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) scores for reliability ranged from −0.26 to 1.00. The highest ICC scores were found for the vastus lateralis, rectus femoris, upper arm anterior, and the trunk (ICC = 0.72 to 1.000). All included validity studies found ICC scores ranging from 0.92 to 0.999. Two studies describing the validity of ultrasound to predict lean body mass showed good validity as compared with dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry (r (2) = 0.92 to 0.96). This systematic review shows that ultrasound is a reliable and valid tool for the assessment of muscle size in older adults. More high‐quality research is required to confirm these findings in both clinical and healthy populations. Furthermore, ultrasound assessment of small muscles needs further evaluation. Ultrasound to predict lean body mass is feasible; however, future research is required to validate prediction equations in older adults with varying function and health. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017-07-12 2017-10 /pmc/articles/PMC5659048/ /pubmed/28703496 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcsm.12210 Text en © 2017 The Authors. Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the Society on Sarcopenia, Cachexia and Wasting Disorders This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Reviews
Nijholt, Willemke
Scafoglieri, Aldo
Jager‐Wittenaar, Harriët
Hobbelen, Johannes S.M.
van der Schans, Cees P.
The reliability and validity of ultrasound to quantify muscles in older adults: a systematic review
title The reliability and validity of ultrasound to quantify muscles in older adults: a systematic review
title_full The reliability and validity of ultrasound to quantify muscles in older adults: a systematic review
title_fullStr The reliability and validity of ultrasound to quantify muscles in older adults: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed The reliability and validity of ultrasound to quantify muscles in older adults: a systematic review
title_short The reliability and validity of ultrasound to quantify muscles in older adults: a systematic review
title_sort reliability and validity of ultrasound to quantify muscles in older adults: a systematic review
topic Reviews
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5659048/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28703496
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcsm.12210
work_keys_str_mv AT nijholtwillemke thereliabilityandvalidityofultrasoundtoquantifymusclesinolderadultsasystematicreview
AT scafoglierialdo thereliabilityandvalidityofultrasoundtoquantifymusclesinolderadultsasystematicreview
AT jagerwittenaarharriet thereliabilityandvalidityofultrasoundtoquantifymusclesinolderadultsasystematicreview
AT hobbelenjohannessm thereliabilityandvalidityofultrasoundtoquantifymusclesinolderadultsasystematicreview
AT vanderschansceesp thereliabilityandvalidityofultrasoundtoquantifymusclesinolderadultsasystematicreview
AT nijholtwillemke reliabilityandvalidityofultrasoundtoquantifymusclesinolderadultsasystematicreview
AT scafoglierialdo reliabilityandvalidityofultrasoundtoquantifymusclesinolderadultsasystematicreview
AT jagerwittenaarharriet reliabilityandvalidityofultrasoundtoquantifymusclesinolderadultsasystematicreview
AT hobbelenjohannessm reliabilityandvalidityofultrasoundtoquantifymusclesinolderadultsasystematicreview
AT vanderschansceesp reliabilityandvalidityofultrasoundtoquantifymusclesinolderadultsasystematicreview