Open Access
Open access
Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle, volume 8, issue 5, pages 702-712

The reliability and validity of ultrasound to quantify muscles in older adults: a systematic review

Willemke Nijholt 1, 2
Aldo Scafoglieri 3
Harriët Jager-Wittenaar 1, 4
Johannes (Hans) S.M. Hobbelen 1, 5
Cees P. van der Schans 1, 2, 6
Publication typeJournal Article
Publication date2017-07-12
scimago Q1
SJR2.816
CiteScore13.3
Impact factor9.4
ISSN21905991, 21906009
PubMed ID:  28703496
Physiology (medical)
Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
Abstract
This review evaluates the reliability and validity of ultrasound to quantify muscles in older adults. The databases PubMed, Cochrane, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature were systematically searched for studies. In 17 studies, the reliability (n = 13) and validity (n = 8) of ultrasound to quantify muscles in community-dwelling older adults (≥60 years) or a clinical population were evaluated. Four out of 13 reliability studies investigated both intra-rater and inter-rater reliability. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) scores for reliability ranged from −0.26 to 1.00. The highest ICC scores were found for the vastus lateralis, rectus femoris, upper arm anterior, and the trunk (ICC = 0.72 to 1.000). All included validity studies found ICC scores ranging from 0.92 to 0.999. Two studies describing the validity of ultrasound to predict lean body mass showed good validity as compared with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (r2 = 0.92 to 0.96). This systematic review shows that ultrasound is a reliable and valid tool for the assessment of muscle size in older adults. More high-quality research is required to confirm these findings in both clinical and healthy populations. Furthermore, ultrasound assessment of small muscles needs further evaluation. Ultrasound to predict lean body mass is feasible; however, future research is required to validate prediction equations in older adults with varying function and health.
Found 
Found 

Top-30

Journals

2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18

Publishers

10
20
30
40
50
60
70
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
  • We do not take into account publications without a DOI.
  • Statistics recalculated only for publications connected to researchers, organizations and labs registered on the platform.
  • Statistics recalculated weekly.

Are you a researcher?

Create a profile to get free access to personal recommendations for colleagues and new articles.
Share
Cite this
GOST | RIS | BibTex | MLA
Found error?