Skeletal muscle ultrasonography: Visual versus quantitative evaluation
In this study, we compared the sensitivity and specificity of visual versus quantitative evaluation of skeletal muscle ultrasound in children suspected of having a neuromuscular disorder (NMD). Ultrasonography (US) scans of four muscles (biceps brachii, forearm flexors, quadriceps femoris, anterior...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Ultrasound in medicine & biology 2006-09, Vol.32 (9), p.1315-1321 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1321 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 9 |
| container_start_page | 1315 |
| container_title | Ultrasound in medicine & biology |
| container_volume | 32 |
| creator | Pillen, Sigrid van Keimpema, Mieke Nievelstein, Rutger A.J. Verrips, Aad van Kruijsbergen-Raijmann, Wilma Zwarts, Machiel J. |
| description | In this study, we compared the sensitivity and specificity of visual versus quantitative evaluation of skeletal muscle ultrasound in children suspected of having a neuromuscular disorder (NMD). Ultrasonography (US) scans of four muscles (biceps brachii, forearm flexors, quadriceps femoris, anterior tibial muscle) were made in 76 children. All images were visually evaluated using the Heckmatt criteria and quantitatively evaluated with computer-assisted grey-scale analysis of muscle echo intensity. Visual evaluation could achieve a sensitivity up to 71%, with a specificity of 92%. With quantification, a sensitivity of 87% accompanied by a specificity of 67% was found, but other diagnostic values could be achieved, depending on the cut-off point. Quantification resulted in a higher interobserver agreement (kappa 0.86) compared with visual evaluation (kappa 0.53). We conclude that quantification of echo intensity is a more objective and accurate method. Because it can achieve higher sensitivities, it is better-suited for the screening task in the diagnostic phase of children with a NMD. (E-mail:
s.pillen@cukz.umcn.nl) |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2006.05.028 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_883041276</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0301562906016401</els_id><sourcerecordid>68857508</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c410t-17a8d6abf7e7c57e28e625749b884e59d763332ae9ad377459d24539b5ee91243</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkMtOwzAQRS0EoqXwCyhiAasE24lf3SHeEhILHmJnOckUXNKkteNI_D2uWglWiNVYM2fuWAehE4Izggk_n2eh6Z3xC6hL22UUY55hlmEqd9CYSKFSqsjbLhrjHJOUcapG6MD7OcZY8FzsoxHhijMlyBjdPH1CA71pkkXwVQPJJrpru3dnlh9f0-TV-hDHAzgffLIKpu1tb3o7QAKDaUJ8du0h2puZxsPRtk7Qy8318-Vd-vB4e3958ZBWBcF9SoSRNTflTIComAAqgVMmClVKWQBTdfxfnlMDytS5EEXs0ILlqmQAitAin6CzTe7SdasAvtcL6ytoGtNCF7yWMscFoTFmgk7_JLmUTDAsIzjdgJXrvHcw00tnF8Z9aYL12ree69--9dq3xkxH33H5eHsllHH8s7oVHIGrDQDRymDBaV9ZaCuorYOq13Vn_3PnGy9NmV4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>68857508</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Skeletal muscle ultrasonography: Visual versus quantitative evaluation</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Pillen, Sigrid ; van Keimpema, Mieke ; Nievelstein, Rutger A.J. ; Verrips, Aad ; van Kruijsbergen-Raijmann, Wilma ; Zwarts, Machiel J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Pillen, Sigrid ; van Keimpema, Mieke ; Nievelstein, Rutger A.J. ; Verrips, Aad ; van Kruijsbergen-Raijmann, Wilma ; Zwarts, Machiel J.</creatorcontrib><description>In this study, we compared the sensitivity and specificity of visual versus quantitative evaluation of skeletal muscle ultrasound in children suspected of having a neuromuscular disorder (NMD). Ultrasonography (US) scans of four muscles (biceps brachii, forearm flexors, quadriceps femoris, anterior tibial muscle) were made in 76 children. All images were visually evaluated using the Heckmatt criteria and quantitatively evaluated with computer-assisted grey-scale analysis of muscle echo intensity. Visual evaluation could achieve a sensitivity up to 71%, with a specificity of 92%. With quantification, a sensitivity of 87% accompanied by a specificity of 67% was found, but other diagnostic values could be achieved, depending on the cut-off point. Quantification resulted in a higher interobserver agreement (kappa 0.86) compared with visual evaluation (kappa 0.53). We conclude that quantification of echo intensity is a more objective and accurate method. Because it can achieve higher sensitivities, it is better-suited for the screening task in the diagnostic phase of children with a NMD. (E-mail:
s.pillen@cukz.umcn.nl)</description><identifier>ISSN: 0301-5629</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-291X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2006.05.028</identifier><identifier>PMID: 16965971</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Child ; Child, Preschool ; Children ; Female ; Forearm ; Grey-scale analysis ; Humans ; Image Processing, Computer-Assisted - methods ; Infant ; Male ; Muscle, Skeletal - diagnostic imaging ; Muscular Diseases - diagnostic imaging ; Neuromuscular Diseases - diagnostic imaging ; Neuromuscular Disorders ; neuromuscular system ; Observer Variation ; Prospective Studies ; quadriceps muscle ; ROC Curve ; Sensitivity ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Skeletal muscle ; Specificity ; Ultrasonography ; Ultrasound ; Visual Evaluation</subject><ispartof>Ultrasound in medicine & biology, 2006-09, Vol.32 (9), p.1315-1321</ispartof><rights>2006 World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c410t-17a8d6abf7e7c57e28e625749b884e59d763332ae9ad377459d24539b5ee91243</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c410t-17a8d6abf7e7c57e28e625749b884e59d763332ae9ad377459d24539b5ee91243</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301562906016401$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16965971$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Pillen, Sigrid</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Keimpema, Mieke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nievelstein, Rutger A.J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Verrips, Aad</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Kruijsbergen-Raijmann, Wilma</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zwarts, Machiel J.</creatorcontrib><title>Skeletal muscle ultrasonography: Visual versus quantitative evaluation</title><title>Ultrasound in medicine & biology</title><addtitle>Ultrasound Med Biol</addtitle><description>In this study, we compared the sensitivity and specificity of visual versus quantitative evaluation of skeletal muscle ultrasound in children suspected of having a neuromuscular disorder (NMD). Ultrasonography (US) scans of four muscles (biceps brachii, forearm flexors, quadriceps femoris, anterior tibial muscle) were made in 76 children. All images were visually evaluated using the Heckmatt criteria and quantitatively evaluated with computer-assisted grey-scale analysis of muscle echo intensity. Visual evaluation could achieve a sensitivity up to 71%, with a specificity of 92%. With quantification, a sensitivity of 87% accompanied by a specificity of 67% was found, but other diagnostic values could be achieved, depending on the cut-off point. Quantification resulted in a higher interobserver agreement (kappa 0.86) compared with visual evaluation (kappa 0.53). We conclude that quantification of echo intensity is a more objective and accurate method. Because it can achieve higher sensitivities, it is better-suited for the screening task in the diagnostic phase of children with a NMD. (E-mail:
s.pillen@cukz.umcn.nl)</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Child</subject><subject>Child, Preschool</subject><subject>Children</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Forearm</subject><subject>Grey-scale analysis</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Image Processing, Computer-Assisted - methods</subject><subject>Infant</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Muscle, Skeletal - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Muscular Diseases - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Neuromuscular Diseases - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Neuromuscular Disorders</subject><subject>neuromuscular system</subject><subject>Observer Variation</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>quadriceps muscle</subject><subject>ROC Curve</subject><subject>Sensitivity</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Skeletal muscle</subject><subject>Specificity</subject><subject>Ultrasonography</subject><subject>Ultrasound</subject><subject>Visual Evaluation</subject><issn>0301-5629</issn><issn>1879-291X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2006</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkMtOwzAQRS0EoqXwCyhiAasE24lf3SHeEhILHmJnOckUXNKkteNI_D2uWglWiNVYM2fuWAehE4Izggk_n2eh6Z3xC6hL22UUY55hlmEqd9CYSKFSqsjbLhrjHJOUcapG6MD7OcZY8FzsoxHhijMlyBjdPH1CA71pkkXwVQPJJrpru3dnlh9f0-TV-hDHAzgffLIKpu1tb3o7QAKDaUJ8du0h2puZxsPRtk7Qy8318-Vd-vB4e3958ZBWBcF9SoSRNTflTIComAAqgVMmClVKWQBTdfxfnlMDytS5EEXs0ILlqmQAitAin6CzTe7SdasAvtcL6ytoGtNCF7yWMscFoTFmgk7_JLmUTDAsIzjdgJXrvHcw00tnF8Z9aYL12ree69--9dq3xkxH33H5eHsllHH8s7oVHIGrDQDRymDBaV9ZaCuorYOq13Vn_3PnGy9NmV4</recordid><startdate>20060901</startdate><enddate>20060901</enddate><creator>Pillen, Sigrid</creator><creator>van Keimpema, Mieke</creator><creator>Nievelstein, Rutger A.J.</creator><creator>Verrips, Aad</creator><creator>van Kruijsbergen-Raijmann, Wilma</creator><creator>Zwarts, Machiel J.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>P64</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20060901</creationdate><title>Skeletal muscle ultrasonography: Visual versus quantitative evaluation</title><author>Pillen, Sigrid ; van Keimpema, Mieke ; Nievelstein, Rutger A.J. ; Verrips, Aad ; van Kruijsbergen-Raijmann, Wilma ; Zwarts, Machiel J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c410t-17a8d6abf7e7c57e28e625749b884e59d763332ae9ad377459d24539b5ee91243</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2006</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Child</topic><topic>Child, Preschool</topic><topic>Children</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Forearm</topic><topic>Grey-scale analysis</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Image Processing, Computer-Assisted - methods</topic><topic>Infant</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Muscle, Skeletal - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Muscular Diseases - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Neuromuscular Diseases - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Neuromuscular Disorders</topic><topic>neuromuscular system</topic><topic>Observer Variation</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>quadriceps muscle</topic><topic>ROC Curve</topic><topic>Sensitivity</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Skeletal muscle</topic><topic>Specificity</topic><topic>Ultrasonography</topic><topic>Ultrasound</topic><topic>Visual Evaluation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Pillen, Sigrid</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Keimpema, Mieke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nievelstein, Rutger A.J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Verrips, Aad</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Kruijsbergen-Raijmann, Wilma</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zwarts, Machiel J.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Ultrasound in medicine & biology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Pillen, Sigrid</au><au>van Keimpema, Mieke</au><au>Nievelstein, Rutger A.J.</au><au>Verrips, Aad</au><au>van Kruijsbergen-Raijmann, Wilma</au><au>Zwarts, Machiel J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Skeletal muscle ultrasonography: Visual versus quantitative evaluation</atitle><jtitle>Ultrasound in medicine & biology</jtitle><addtitle>Ultrasound Med Biol</addtitle><date>2006-09-01</date><risdate>2006</risdate><volume>32</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>1315</spage><epage>1321</epage><pages>1315-1321</pages><issn>0301-5629</issn><eissn>1879-291X</eissn><abstract>In this study, we compared the sensitivity and specificity of visual versus quantitative evaluation of skeletal muscle ultrasound in children suspected of having a neuromuscular disorder (NMD). Ultrasonography (US) scans of four muscles (biceps brachii, forearm flexors, quadriceps femoris, anterior tibial muscle) were made in 76 children. All images were visually evaluated using the Heckmatt criteria and quantitatively evaluated with computer-assisted grey-scale analysis of muscle echo intensity. Visual evaluation could achieve a sensitivity up to 71%, with a specificity of 92%. With quantification, a sensitivity of 87% accompanied by a specificity of 67% was found, but other diagnostic values could be achieved, depending on the cut-off point. Quantification resulted in a higher interobserver agreement (kappa 0.86) compared with visual evaluation (kappa 0.53). We conclude that quantification of echo intensity is a more objective and accurate method. Because it can achieve higher sensitivities, it is better-suited for the screening task in the diagnostic phase of children with a NMD. (E-mail:
s.pillen@cukz.umcn.nl)</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>16965971</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2006.05.028</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0301-5629 |
| ispartof | Ultrasound in medicine & biology, 2006-09, Vol.32 (9), p.1315-1321 |
| issn | 0301-5629 1879-291X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_883041276 |
| source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
| subjects | Adolescent Child Child, Preschool Children Female Forearm Grey-scale analysis Humans Image Processing, Computer-Assisted - methods Infant Male Muscle, Skeletal - diagnostic imaging Muscular Diseases - diagnostic imaging Neuromuscular Diseases - diagnostic imaging Neuromuscular Disorders neuromuscular system Observer Variation Prospective Studies quadriceps muscle ROC Curve Sensitivity Sensitivity and Specificity Skeletal muscle Specificity Ultrasonography Ultrasound Visual Evaluation |
| title | Skeletal muscle ultrasonography: Visual versus quantitative evaluation |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-08T02%3A45%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Skeletal%20muscle%20ultrasonography:%20Visual%20versus%20quantitative%20evaluation&rft.jtitle=Ultrasound%20in%20medicine%20&%20biology&rft.au=Pillen,%20Sigrid&rft.date=2006-09-01&rft.volume=32&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=1315&rft.epage=1321&rft.pages=1315-1321&rft.issn=0301-5629&rft.eissn=1879-291X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2006.05.028&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E68857508%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=68857508&rft_id=info:pmid/16965971&rft_els_id=S0301562906016401&rfr_iscdi=true |