Sean Mc Auliffe1, Karen Mc Creesh2, Helen Purtill3, Kieran O'Sullivan2. 1. Department of Clinical Therapies, University of Limerick, Ireland. Electronic address: Sean.mcauliffe@ul.ie. 2. Department of Clinical Therapies, University of Limerick, Ireland. 3. Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Limerick, Ireland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diagnostic ultrasound (US) is a commonly used imaging modality for visualising tendon pathology and morphology. In comparison to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), diagnostic US is perceived to have a higher risk of error when evaluating tendon size. AIM: To systematically assess the evidence regarding the Intra rater and Inter rater reliability of diagnostic US measurements of tendon size. DATA SOURCES: Eight electronic databases were searched using an agreed set of keywords. Studies which investigated the reliability of tendon size (thickness or cross sectional area) using diagnostic US were eligible. RESULTS: Combined Inter rater and Intra rater ICC values for tendon thickness ranged from 0.45 to 0.99. Combined Inter rater and Intra rater ICC values for tendon cross-sectional area (CSA) ranged from 0.58 to 0.92. Overall, Intra rater ICC values (0.59-0.99) were marginally higher than Inter rater values (0.45-0.99) across all tendon sites. Percentage co-efficient of variation (CV%) for tendon thickness and CSA ranged from 0 to 35% across all tendons. Percentage standard error of the mean SEM% values for tendon thickness ranged from 3.33% to 7.39%. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this review suggest diagnostic US measures of tendon size are reliable, both in terms of relative and absolute reliability. However, the findings must be considered in light of the presence of tendon abnormalities in a large percentage of asymptomatic populations.
BACKGROUND: Diagnostic ultrasound (US) is a commonly used imaging modality for visualising tendon pathology and morphology. In comparison to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), diagnostic US is perceived to have a higher risk of error when evaluating tendon size. AIM: To systematically assess the evidence regarding the Intra rater and Inter rater reliability of diagnostic US measurements of tendon size. DATA SOURCES: Eight electronic databases were searched using an agreed set of keywords. Studies which investigated the reliability of tendon size (thickness or cross sectional area) using diagnostic US were eligible. RESULTS: Combined Inter rater and Intra rater ICC values for tendon thickness ranged from 0.45 to 0.99. Combined Inter rater and Intra rater ICC values for tendon cross-sectional area (CSA) ranged from 0.58 to 0.92. Overall, Intra rater ICC values (0.59-0.99) were marginally higher than Inter rater values (0.45-0.99) across all tendon sites. Percentage co-efficient of variation (CV%) for tendon thickness and CSA ranged from 0 to 35% across all tendons. Percentage standard error of the mean SEM% values for tendon thickness ranged from 3.33% to 7.39%. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this review suggest diagnostic US measures of tendon size are reliable, both in terms of relative and absolute reliability. However, the findings must be considered in light of the presence of tendon abnormalities in a large percentage of asymptomatic populations.
Authors: Pierre A d'Hemecourt; Dai Sugimoto; Maxwell McKee-Proctor; Rebecca L Zwicker; Sarah S Jackson; Eduardo N Novais; Young-Jo Kim; Michael B Millis; Andrea Stracciolini Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Fabio Sarto; Jörg Spörri; Daniel P Fitze; Jonathan I Quinlan; Marco V Narici; Martino V Franchi Journal: Sports Med Date: 2021-03-08 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Joana Castro; Karina Livino de Carvalho; Paulo Eugênio Silva; Emerson Fachin-Martins; Nicolas Babault; Rita de Cássia Marqueti; João Luiz Quagliotti Durigan Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-06-27 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Xiaoning Yuan; Ryan Lowder; Kathelynn Aviles-Wetherell; Christian Skroce; Katherine V Yao; Jennifer Soo Hoo Journal: Front Rehabil Sci Date: 2022-08-17
Authors: Robert Schleip; Paul William Hodges; Martina Zügel; Constantinos N Maganaris; Jan Wilke; Karin Jurkat-Rott; Werner Klingler; Scott C Wearing; Thomas Findley; Mary F Barbe; Jürgen Michael Steinacker; Andry Vleeming; Wilhelm Bloch Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2018-08-02 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: David T Sims; Gladys L Onambélé-Pearson; Adrian Burden; Carl Payton; Christopher I Morse Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2018-07-20 Impact factor: 4.566