4.4 Article

Validity of ultrasonograph muscle thickness measurements for estimating muscle volume of knee extensors in humans

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
卷 86, 期 3, 页码 203-208

出版社

SPRINGER-VERLAG
DOI: 10.1007/s00421-001-0533-9

关键词

brightness mode ultrasound; magnetic resonance imaging; quadriceps femoris muscle; field research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to investigate the suitability of using ultrasonograph muscle thickness (MT) measurements to estimate the muscle volume (MV) of the quadriceps femoris as an alternative approach to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The subjects were 46 men aged from 20 to 70 years who were randomly allocated to either a validation or a cross-validation group, In the validation group, multiple and simple regression equations, which used a set of MT values determined at mid-thigh and thigh length (1) and the product of pi. (MT/2)(2). and 1 [pi.(MT/2)(2).1]. respectively, as independent variables, were derived to estimate the MV measured by MRI. Because the two equations were cross-validated, the data from the two groups were pooled to generate the final prediction equations: MV (cm(3))=(MT x 311.732)+(1 x 53,346) -2058.529 as the multiple regression equation and MV (cm(3)) = [pi.(MT/ 2)(2).1] x 1.1176 663.040 as the simple regression equation. In the multiple regression equation, NIT explained 75% of the variation in the MV measured by MRI. The r(2) and the standard error of the estimate (SEE) of the equations were 0.824 and 175.6 cm(3) (10.6%), respectively. for the multiple regression equation and 0.829 and 173.7 cm(3) (10.5%), respectively, for the simple regression equation. Thus. the present results indicate that ultrasonograph NIT measurements at mid-thigh are useful for estimating the MV of knee extensors. However, the observed SEE values suggest that the prediction equation obtained in this study may be limited to population studies rather than individual assessments in longitudinal studies.

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

4.4
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