The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Validity of ultrasound imaging versus magnetic resonance imaging for measuring anterior thigh muscle, subcutaneous fat, and fascia thickness

Validity of ultrasound imaging versus magnetic resonance imaging for measuring anterior thigh muscle, subcutaneous fat, and fascia thickness
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), 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.
58
Lars, Arendt-nielsen
ec85b3fd-1056-4e12-b38e-bee06e77a9a5
Mechelli, Filippo
1fe0c9ce-35c9-4c2b-9ece-c49a31df963a
Stokes, M.J.
71730503-70ce-4e67-b7ea-a3e54579717f
Agyapong-badu, S
8a3f8a11-e4b7-48fe-8730-1bc966eba816
Lars, Arendt-nielsen
ec85b3fd-1056-4e12-b38e-bee06e77a9a5
Mechelli, Filippo
1fe0c9ce-35c9-4c2b-9ece-c49a31df963a
Stokes, M.J.
71730503-70ce-4e67-b7ea-a3e54579717f
Agyapong-badu, S
8a3f8a11-e4b7-48fe-8730-1bc966eba816

Lars, Arendt-nielsen, Mechelli, Filippo, Stokes, M.J. and Agyapong-badu, S (2019) Validity of ultrasound imaging versus magnetic resonance imaging for measuring anterior thigh muscle, subcutaneous fat, and fascia thickness. Methods and Protocols, 2 (3), 58. (doi:10.3390/mps2030058).

Record type: Article

Abstract

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.

Text
Validity of Ultrasound Imaging Versus Magnetic Resonance - Version of Record
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (1MB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 8 July 2019
Published date: 10 July 2019

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 432953
URI: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/432953
PURE UUID: 1da8a9ec-4d38-4f1e-bc18-cb3fd1b97420
ORCID for M.J. Stokes: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-4204-0890

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 01 Aug 2019 16:30
Last modified: 02 Aug 2019 00:34

Export record

Altmetrics

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×