Matt S Stock1,2, Brennan J Thompson3,4. 1. School of Kinesiology and Physical Therapy, University of Central Florida, 12805 Pegasus Drive, HPA 1, Room 258, Orlando, FL, 32816-2205, USA. matt.stock@ucf.edu. 2. Neuromuscular Plasticity Laboratory, Institute of Exercise Physiology and Rehabilitation Science, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA. matt.stock@ucf.edu. 3. Department of Kinesiology and Health Science, Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA. 4. Sorenson Legacy Foundation Center for Clinical Excellence, Movement Research Clinic, Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This narrative review provides an overview of the current knowledge of B-mode ultrasound-derived echo intensity (EI) as an indicator of skeletal muscle quality. METHOD: PubMed and Google Scholar were used to search the literature. Advanced search functions were used to find original studies with the terms 'echo intensity' and/or 'muscle quality' in the title and/or abstract. Publications that conceptually described muscle quality but did not include measurement of EI were not a focus of the review. RESULT: Importantly, the foundational premise of EI remains unclear. While it is likely that EI reflects intramuscular adiposity, data suggesting that these measurements are influenced by fibrous tissue is limited to diseased muscle and animal models. EI appears to show particular promise in studying muscular aging. Studies have consistently reported an association between EI and muscle function, though not all chronic interventions have demonstrated improvements. Based on the existing literature, it is unclear if EI can be used as a marker of muscle glycogen following exercise and nutritional interventions, or if EI is influenced by hydration status. Inconsistent methodological approaches used across laboratories have made comparing EI studies challenging. Image depth, rest duration, participant positioning, probe tilt, and the decision to correct for subcutaneous adipose tissue thickness are all critical considerations when interpreting the literature and planning studies. CONCLUSION: While some areas show conflicting evidence, EI shows promise as a novel tool for studying muscle quality. Collaborative efforts focused on methodology are necessary to enhance the consistency and quality of the EI literature.
PURPOSE: This narrative review provides an overview of the current knowledge of B-mode ultrasound-derived echo intensity (EI) as an indicator of skeletal muscle quality. METHOD: PubMed and Google Scholar were used to search the literature. Advanced search functions were used to find original studies with the terms 'echo intensity' and/or 'muscle quality' in the title and/or abstract. Publications that conceptually described muscle quality but did not include measurement of EI were not a focus of the review. RESULT: Importantly, the foundational premise of EI remains unclear. While it is likely that EI reflects intramuscular adiposity, data suggesting that these measurements are influenced by fibrous tissue is limited to diseased muscle and animal models. EI appears to show particular promise in studying muscular aging. Studies have consistently reported an association between EI and muscle function, though not all chronic interventions have demonstrated improvements. Based on the existing literature, it is unclear if EI can be used as a marker of muscle glycogen following exercise and nutritional interventions, or if EI is influenced by hydration status. Inconsistent methodological approaches used across laboratories have made comparing EI studies challenging. Image depth, rest duration, participant positioning, probe tilt, and the decision to correct for subcutaneous adipose tissue thickness are all critical considerations when interpreting the literature and planning studies. CONCLUSION: While some areas show conflicting evidence, EI shows promise as a novel tool for studying muscle quality. Collaborative efforts focused on methodology are necessary to enhance the consistency and quality of the EI literature.
Authors: Eliott Arroyo; Jeffrey R Stout; Kyle S Beyer; David D Church; Alyssa N Varanoske; David H Fukuda; Jay R Hoffman Journal: Clin Physiol Funct Imaging Date: 2016-12-16 Impact factor: 2.273
Authors: Ilse M P Arts; H Jurgen Schelhaas; Kiek C N Verrijp; Machiel J Zwarts; Sebastiaan Overeem; Jeroen A W M van der Laak; Martin M Y Lammens; Sigrid Pillen Journal: Muscle Nerve Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 3.217
Authors: Akash U Bali; Kylie K Harmon; Adam M Burton; David C Phan; Nicholas E Mercer; Nicholas W Lawless; Matt S Stock Journal: Exp Gerontol Date: 2020-08-08 Impact factor: 4.032
Authors: Jaquelini Betta Canever; Fábio Juner Lanferdini; Bruno Monteiro de Moura; Fernando Diefenthaeler; Kelly Mônica Marinho E Lima Journal: J Ultrasound Date: 2021-09-14
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: Zachary S Logeson; Rob J MacLennan; Gerard-Kyle B Abad; Johnathon M Methven; Molly R Gradl; Matheus D Pinto; Ronei S Pinto; Matt S Stock Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-01-11 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Amanda Vale-Lira; Natália Turri-Silva; Kenneth Verboven; João Luiz Quagliotti Durigan; Alexandra Corrêa G B de Lima; Martim Bottaro; Gaspar R Chiappa; Dominique Hansen; Gerson Cipriano Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-01-09 Impact factor: 3.390