Abstract
Purpose
Muscle thickness measured via ultrasound is commonly used to assess muscle size. The purpose of this study was to determine if the reliability of this measurement will improve if using the Compare Assistant tool, and whether this depends on technician experience and the muscle being assessed.
Methods
Individuals came to the laboratory for two visits each separated by 24 h. On day 1, two ultrasound images were taken on the individual’s anterior upper arm (elbow flexors) and anterior lower leg (tibialis anterior) by two inexperienced and one experienced ultrasound technician. On day 2, three images were taken: (1) without looking at the previous images taken on day 1; (2) after re-examining the images taken on day 1, and (3) side-by-side with the images taken on day 1 via Compare Assistant. Bayes Factors (BF10) were used to provide evidence for the null (< 0.33) or alternative (> 3) hypotheses.
Results
There was no rater by measurement technique interaction (upper body: BF10 = 0.04, lower body: BF10 = 0.138), nor was there a main effect of measurement technique (upper body: BF10 = 0.052, lower body: BF10 = 0.331), indicating that reliability measures were not improved for either the upper body (CV%, no look: 2.92 vs. Compare Assistant: 2.87) or lower body (CV%, no look: 1.81 vs. Compare Assistant: 1.34) as a result of using Compare Assistant.
Conclusion
The results of this study suggest that day-to-day reliability of muscle thickness measurement may be limited by random biological variability as opposed to technician error.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Buckner SL, Dankel SJ, Mattocks KT, et al. Differentiating swelling and hypertrophy through indirect assessment of muscle damage in untrained men following repeated bouts of resistance exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2017;117:213–24.
Wong V, Abe T, Chatakondi RN, et al. The influence of biological sex and cuff width on muscle swelling, echo intensity, and the fatigue response to blood flow restricted exercise. J Sports Sci. 2019;37:1865–73.
Dankel SJ, Bell ZW, Spitz RW, et al. Assessing differential responders and mean changes in muscle size, strength, and the crossover effect to 2 distinct resistance training protocols. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2020;45:463–70.
Nakatani M, Takai Y, Akagi R, et al. Validity of muscle thickness-based prediction equation for quadriceps femoris volume in middle-aged and older men and women. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2016;116:2125–33.
Gould DW, Watson EL, Wilkinson TJ, et al. Ultrasound assessment of muscle mass in response to exercise training in chronic kidney disease: a comparison with MRI. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2019;10:748–55.
Franchi MV, Longo S, Mallinson J, et al. Muscle thickness correlates to muscle cross-sectional area in the assessment of strength training-induced hypertrophy. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2018;28:846–53.
Dankel SJ, Mouser JG, Mattocks KT, et al. Changes in muscle size via MRI and ultrasound: Are they equivalent? Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2018;28:1467–8.
Santos R, Armada-da-Silva PAS. Reproducibility of ultrasound-derived muscle thickness and echo-intensity for the entire quadriceps femoris muscle. Radiography (Lond). 2017;23:e51–61.
Jenkins NDM, Miller JM, Buckner SL, et al. Test–retest reliability of single transverse versus panoramic ultrasound imaging for muscle size and echo intensity of the Biceps Brachii. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2015;41:1584–91.
Wallwork TL, Hides JA, Stanton WR. Intrarater and interrater reliability of assessment of lumbar multifidus muscle thickness using rehabilitative ultrasound imaging. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2007;37:608–12.
Abe T, Loenneke JP, Young KC, et al. Validity of ultrasound prediction equations for total and regional muscularity in middle-aged and older men and women. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2015;41:557–64.
Atkinson G, Nevill AM. Statistical methods for assessing measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine. Sports Med. 1998;26:217–38.
van Doorn J, van den Bergh D, Böhm U, et al. The JASP guidelines for conducting and reporting a Bayesian analysis. Psychon Bull Rev. 2021;28:813–26.
Abe T, Dankel S, Buckner S, et al. Short term (24 hours) and long term (1 year) assessments of reliability in older adults: can one replace the other. J Aging Res Clin Pract. 2018;18:82–4.
Takahashi Y, Fujino Y, Miura K, et al. Intra- and inter-rater reliability of rectus femoris muscle thickness measured using ultrasonography in healthy individuals. Ultrasound J. 2021;13:21.
Dankel SJ, Abe T, Bell ZW, et al. The impact of ultrasound probe tilt on muscle thickness and echo-intensity: a cross-sectional study. J Clin Densitom. 2020;23:630–8.
Wakeling JM, Jackman M, Namburete AI. The effect of external compression on the mechanics of muscle contraction. J Appl Biomech. 2013;29:360–4.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Kevin Rice, Tyler Baer, Emely Urbina, Dominic Whitener, and Scott Dankel all have no conflicts of interest to declare and have not received any funding for this study.
Human rights statement and informed consent
All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1964 and later versions. Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Baer, T.D., Rice, K.A., Urbina, E. et al. Assessing the effectiveness of Compare Assistant for improving intra-rater reliability of ultrasound-measured muscle thickness. J Med Ultrasonics 51, 117–123 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10396-023-01367-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10396-023-01367-y