↓ Skip to main content

Reliability of diagnostic ultrasound in measuring the multifidus muscle

Overview of attention for article published in Chiropractic & Manual Therapies, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
12 tweeters
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Reliability of diagnostic ultrasound in measuring the multifidus muscle
Published in
Chiropractic & Manual Therapies, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12998-015-0059-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eirik Johan Skeie, Jan Arve Borge, Charlotte Leboeuf-Yde, Jenni Bolton, Niels Wedderkopp

Abstract

Ultrasound is frequently used to measure activity in the lumbar multifidus muscle (LMM). However previous reliability studies on diagnostic ultrasound and LMM have included a limited number of subjects and few have used Bland-Altman's Limits of Agreement (LOA). Further one does not know if activity affects the subjects' ability to contract the LMM. From January 2012 to December 2012 an inter- and intra-examiner reliability study was carried out in a clinical setting. It consisted of a total of four experiments with 30 subjects in each study. Two experienced examiners performed all measurements. Ultrasound measurements were made of: 1. the LMM in the resting state, 2. during a contracted state, 3. on subsequent days, and, before and after walking. Reliability and agreement was tested for 1. resting LMM, 2. contracted LMM, and 3. thickness change in the LMM. Mean values of three measurements were used for statistical analysis for each spinal level. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) 3.1 and 3.2 was used to test for reliability, and Bland-Altman's LOA method to test for agreement. All of the studies indicate high levels of reliability, but as the LMM thickness increased (increasing contraction) the agreement between examiners was poorer than for low levels of contraction. The use of diagnostic ultrasound to measure the LMM seems to be reliable in subjects who have little or no change in thickness of the LMM with contraction.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Australia 1 2%
Unknown 44 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 15%
Professor 5 11%
Researcher 4 9%
Other 12 26%
Unknown 3 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 13%
Neuroscience 4 9%
Sports and Recreations 2 4%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 2%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 5 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 May 2015.
All research outputs
#941,793
of 9,017,026 outputs
Outputs from Chiropractic & Manual Therapies
#69
of 287 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,064
of 206,316 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Chiropractic & Manual Therapies
#5
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,017,026 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 287 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 206,316 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.