Cargando…

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Henriksen, P, Brage, K, Junge, T, Juul-Kristensen, B, Bojsen-Møller, J, Thorlund, JB
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8841948/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35173775
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1742271X21994609
_version_ 1784650954020225024
author Henriksen, P
Brage, K
Junge, T
Juul-Kristensen, B
Bojsen-Møller, J
Thorlund, JB
author_facet Henriksen, P
Brage, K
Junge, T
Juul-Kristensen, B
Bojsen-Møller, J
Thorlund, JB
author_sort Henriksen, P
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8841948
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88419482022-02-15 Concurrent validity and intrarater reliability of two ultrasound-based methods for assessing patellar tendon stiffness Henriksen, P Brage, K Junge, T Juul-Kristensen, B Bojsen-Møller, J Thorlund, JB Ultrasound Original Research 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. SAGE Publications 2021-02-21 2022-02 /pmc/articles/PMC8841948/ /pubmed/35173775 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1742271X21994609 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Original Research
Henriksen, P
Brage, K
Junge, T
Juul-Kristensen, B
Bojsen-Møller, J
Thorlund, JB
Concurrent validity and intrarater reliability of two ultrasound-based methods for assessing patellar tendon stiffness
title Concurrent validity and intrarater reliability of two ultrasound-based methods for assessing patellar tendon stiffness
title_full Concurrent validity and intrarater reliability of two ultrasound-based methods for assessing patellar tendon stiffness
title_fullStr Concurrent validity and intrarater reliability of two ultrasound-based methods for assessing patellar tendon stiffness
title_full_unstemmed Concurrent validity and intrarater reliability of two ultrasound-based methods for assessing patellar tendon stiffness
title_short Concurrent validity and intrarater reliability of two ultrasound-based methods for assessing patellar tendon stiffness
title_sort concurrent validity and intrarater reliability of two ultrasound-based methods for assessing patellar tendon stiffness
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8841948/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35173775
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1742271X21994609
work_keys_str_mv AT henriksenp concurrentvalidityandintraraterreliabilityoftwoultrasoundbasedmethodsforassessingpatellartendonstiffness
AT bragek concurrentvalidityandintraraterreliabilityoftwoultrasoundbasedmethodsforassessingpatellartendonstiffness
AT junget concurrentvalidityandintraraterreliabilityoftwoultrasoundbasedmethodsforassessingpatellartendonstiffness
AT juulkristensenb concurrentvalidityandintraraterreliabilityoftwoultrasoundbasedmethodsforassessingpatellartendonstiffness
AT bojsenmøllerj concurrentvalidityandintraraterreliabilityoftwoultrasoundbasedmethodsforassessingpatellartendonstiffness
AT thorlundjb concurrentvalidityandintraraterreliabilityoftwoultrasoundbasedmethodsforassessingpatellartendonstiffness