Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorHenriksen, Peter
dc.contributor.authorBojsen-Møller, Jens
dc.contributor.authorBrage, Karen
dc.contributor.authorJunge, Tina
dc.contributor.authorJuul-Kristensen, Birgit
dc.contributor.authorThorlund, Jonas Bloch
dc.date.accessioned2022-04-07T11:08:19Z
dc.date.available2022-04-07T11:08:19Z
dc.date.created2021-12-02T12:28:46Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.identifier.citationUltrasound. 2022, 30(1), Side 18-27.en_US
dc.identifier.issn1742-271X
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/2990494
dc.descriptionThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).en_US
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: Assessment of tendon stiffness in vivo traditionally involves maximal muscle contractions, which can be challenging in pain populations. Alternative methods are suggested, although the clinimetric properties are sparse. This study investigated the concurrent validity and the intrarater reliability of two ultrasound-based methods for assessing patellar tendon stiffness. Methods: Patellar tendon stiffness was assessed in 17 healthy adults with (a) the dynamometer and B-mode ultrasonography method (DBUS) and (b) the strain elastography method. Correlations between the two methods were analysed using Kendall’s Tau-b. The relative reliability of both methods was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The absolute reliability was presented by Bland–Altman plots, standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimum detectable change (MDC). Results: No correlation was found between the two methods, irrespective of reference tissue in strain elastography (Kendall’s Tau-b Hoffa = –0.01 (p = 1.00), Kendall’s Tau-b subcutis = 0.04 (p = 0.87)). Tracking of the tendon elongation in the DBUS method had good to excellent relative reliability (ICC = 0.95 (95% confidence interval – CI: 0.85–0.98)) and high absolute reliability (SEM = 0.04 mm (1%), MDC = 0.11 mm (3%)). The strain elastography method had good to excellent relative reliability, regardless of reference tissue (ICC Hoffa = 0.95 (95% CI: 0.86–0.98), ICC subcutis = 0.94 (95% CI: 0.82–0.98)), but low absolute reliability (SEM Hoffa = 0.06 (20%), MDC Hoffa = 0.18 (60%), SEM subcutis = 0.12 (41%), MDC subcutis = 0.32 (110%)). Conclusions: No concurrent validity existed for DBUS and strain elastography, suggesting that the two methods measure different tendon properties. The overall reliability for the DBUS method was high, but the absolute reliability was low for strain elastography stiffness ratios. Therefore, the strain elastography method may not be recommended for tracking differences in patellar tendon stiffness in healthy adults.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.subjectelastographyen_US
dc.subjectpatellar tendonen_US
dc.subjectreliabilityen_US
dc.subjectstiffnessen_US
dc.subjectultrasounden_US
dc.titleConcurrent validity and intrarater reliability of two ultrasound-based methods for assessing patellar tendon stiffnessen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.rights.holder© The Author(s) 2021en_US
dc.source.pagenumber18-27en_US
dc.source.volume30en_US
dc.source.journalUltrasounden_US
dc.source.issue1en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/1742271X21994609
dc.identifier.cristin1963371
dc.description.localcodeInstitutt for fysisk prestasjonsevne / Department of Physical Performanceen_US
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode1


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel