Cargando…
Validity of Ultrasound Imaging Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Measuring Anterior Thigh Muscle, Subcutaneous Fat, and Fascia Thickness
The aim of the present study was to determine the validity of ultrasound (US) imaging versus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for measuring anterior thigh muscle, subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT), and fascia thickness. Twenty healthy, moderately active participants (aged 49.1 ± 9.74 (36–64) years),...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6789827/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31295936 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/mps2030058 |
_version_ | 1783458702472249344 |
---|---|
author | Mechelli, Filippo Arendt-Nielsen, Lars Stokes, Maria Agyapong-Badu, Sandra |
author_facet | Mechelli, Filippo Arendt-Nielsen, Lars Stokes, Maria Agyapong-Badu, Sandra |
author_sort | Mechelli, Filippo |
collection | PubMed |
description | The aim of the present study was to determine the validity of ultrasound (US) imaging versus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for measuring anterior thigh muscle, subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT), and fascia thickness. Twenty healthy, moderately active participants (aged 49.1 ± 9.74 (36–64) years), underwent imaging of the anterior thigh, using ultrasound and MRI modalities on the same day. Images were analyzed offline to assess the level of agreement between US and MRI measurements. Pearson’s correlation coefficient showed an excellent relationship between US imaging and MRI for measuring muscle (r = 0.99, p < 0.01), SAT (r = 0.99, p < 0.01), and non-contractile tissue (SAT combined with perimuscular fascia) thickness (r = 0.99, p < 0.01). Perimuscular fascia thickness measurement showed a poor correlation between modalities (r = 0.39, p < 0.01). Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC3,1) also showed excellent correlation of the measurements with ICC = 0.99 for muscle thickness, SAT, and non-contractile tissue, but not for perimuscular fascia, which showed poor agreement ICC = 0.36. Bland and Altman plots demonstrated excellent agreement between US imaging and MRI measurements. Criterion validity was demonstrated for US imaging against MRI, for measuring thickness of muscle and SAT, but not perimuscular fascia alone on the anterior thigh. The US imaging technique is therefore applicable for research and clinical purposes for muscle and SAT. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6789827 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-67898272019-10-16 Validity of Ultrasound Imaging Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Measuring Anterior Thigh Muscle, Subcutaneous Fat, and Fascia Thickness Mechelli, Filippo Arendt-Nielsen, Lars Stokes, Maria Agyapong-Badu, Sandra Methods Protoc Technical Note The aim of the present study was to determine the validity of ultrasound (US) imaging versus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for measuring anterior thigh muscle, subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT), and fascia thickness. Twenty healthy, moderately active participants (aged 49.1 ± 9.74 (36–64) years), underwent imaging of the anterior thigh, using ultrasound and MRI modalities on the same day. Images were analyzed offline to assess the level of agreement between US and MRI measurements. Pearson’s correlation coefficient showed an excellent relationship between US imaging and MRI for measuring muscle (r = 0.99, p < 0.01), SAT (r = 0.99, p < 0.01), and non-contractile tissue (SAT combined with perimuscular fascia) thickness (r = 0.99, p < 0.01). Perimuscular fascia thickness measurement showed a poor correlation between modalities (r = 0.39, p < 0.01). Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC3,1) also showed excellent correlation of the measurements with ICC = 0.99 for muscle thickness, SAT, and non-contractile tissue, but not for perimuscular fascia, which showed poor agreement ICC = 0.36. Bland and Altman plots demonstrated excellent agreement between US imaging and MRI measurements. Criterion validity was demonstrated for US imaging against MRI, for measuring thickness of muscle and SAT, but not perimuscular fascia alone on the anterior thigh. The US imaging technique is therefore applicable for research and clinical purposes for muscle and SAT. MDPI 2019-07-10 /pmc/articles/PMC6789827/ /pubmed/31295936 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/mps2030058 Text en © 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Technical Note Mechelli, Filippo Arendt-Nielsen, Lars Stokes, Maria Agyapong-Badu, Sandra Validity of Ultrasound Imaging Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Measuring Anterior Thigh Muscle, Subcutaneous Fat, and Fascia Thickness |
title | Validity of Ultrasound Imaging Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Measuring Anterior Thigh Muscle, Subcutaneous Fat, and Fascia Thickness |
title_full | Validity of Ultrasound Imaging Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Measuring Anterior Thigh Muscle, Subcutaneous Fat, and Fascia Thickness |
title_fullStr | Validity of Ultrasound Imaging Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Measuring Anterior Thigh Muscle, Subcutaneous Fat, and Fascia Thickness |
title_full_unstemmed | Validity of Ultrasound Imaging Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Measuring Anterior Thigh Muscle, Subcutaneous Fat, and Fascia Thickness |
title_short | Validity of Ultrasound Imaging Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Measuring Anterior Thigh Muscle, Subcutaneous Fat, and Fascia Thickness |
title_sort | validity of ultrasound imaging versus magnetic resonance imaging for measuring anterior thigh muscle, subcutaneous fat, and fascia thickness |
topic | Technical Note |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6789827/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31295936 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/mps2030058 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mechellifilippo validityofultrasoundimagingversusmagneticresonanceimagingformeasuringanteriorthighmusclesubcutaneousfatandfasciathickness AT arendtnielsenlars validityofultrasoundimagingversusmagneticresonanceimagingformeasuringanteriorthighmusclesubcutaneousfatandfasciathickness AT stokesmaria validityofultrasoundimagingversusmagneticresonanceimagingformeasuringanteriorthighmusclesubcutaneousfatandfasciathickness AT agyapongbadusandra validityofultrasoundimagingversusmagneticresonanceimagingformeasuringanteriorthighmusclesubcutaneousfatandfasciathickness |