4.5 Review

Reliability and validity of ultrasound measurements of muscle fascicle length and pennation in humans: a systematic review

Journal

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
Volume 114, Issue 6, Pages 761-769

Publisher

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/japplphysiol.01430.2011

Keywords

ultrasonography; muscle architecture; pennation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Kwah LK, Pinto RZ, Diong J, Herbert RD. Reliability and validity of ultrasound measurements of muscle fascicle length and pennation in humans: a systematic review. J Appl Physiol 114: 761-769, 2013. First published January 10, 2013; doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.01430.2011.-Ultrasound imaging is widely used to measure architectural features of human skeletal muscles in vivo. We systematically reviewed studies of the reliability and validity of two-dimensional ultrasound measurement of muscle fascicle lengths or pennation angles in human skeletal muscles. A comprehensive search was conducted in June 2011. Thirty-six reliability studies and six validity studies met the inclusion criteria. Data from these studies indicate that ultrasound measurements of muscle fascicle lengths are reliable across a broad range of experimental conditions [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and r values were always > 0.6, and coefficient of variation values were always < 10%]. The reliability of measurements of pennation angles is broadly similar (ICC and r values were always > 0.5 and coefficient of variation values were always < 14%). Data on validity are less extensive and probably less robust, but suggest that measurement of fascicle lengths and pennation angles are accurate (ICC > 0.7) under certain conditions, such as when large limb muscles are imaged in a relaxed state and the limb or joint remains stationary. Future studies on validity should consider ways to test for the validity of two-dimensional ultrasound imaging in contracted or moving muscles and the best method of probe alignment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available