4.6 Article

Recommended musculoskeletal and sports ultrasound terminology: a Delphi-based consensus statement

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE
卷 56, 期 6, 页码 310-319

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2021-105114

关键词

ultrasonography; muscle; skeletal; sports medicine; orthopedics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The lack of standardised terminology in musculoskeletal and sports ultrasound poses challenges in education, clinical practice, and research. A multidisciplinary expert panel reached consensus on terms and definitions through a Delphi process. This consensus aims to improve clarity and consistency in communication and address areas of variability in diagnostic ultrasound imaging and procedures related to musculoskeletal and sports medicine.
The current lack of agreement regarding standardised terminology in musculoskeletal and sports ultrasound presents challenges in education, clinical practice and research. This consensus was developed to provide a reference to improve clarity and consistency in communication. A multidisciplinary expert panel was convened consisting of 18 members representing multiple specialty societies identified as key stakeholders in musculoskeletal and sports ultrasound. A Delphi process was used to reach consensus, which was defined as group level agreement of >80%. Content was organised into seven general topics including: (1) general definitions, (2) equipment and transducer manipulation, (3) anatomical and descriptive terminology, (4) pathology, (5) procedural terminology, (6) image labelling and (7) documentation. Terms and definitions which reached consensus agreement are presented herein. The historic use of multiple similar terms in the absence of precise definitions has led to confusion when conveying information between colleagues, patients and third-party payers. This multidisciplinary expert consensus addresses multiple areas of variability in diagnostic ultrasound imaging and ultrasound-guided procedures related to musculoskeletal and sports medicine.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据