Comparison between muscle activation measured by electromyography and muscle thickness measured using ultrasonography for effective muscle assessment |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Department of Health Science, The Graduate School, Korea University, Jeongneung 3-dong, Seongbuk-Gu, Seoul 136-703, Republic of Korea;2. Department of Physical Therapy, College of Natural Science, Daejeon University, 62, Daehak-ro, Dong-gu, Daejeon 300-716, Republic of Korea;3. Department of Physical Therapy, College of Health Science, Cheongju University, 298 Daeseong-ro, Sangdang-gu, Cheongju, Chungbuk 360 764, Republic of Korea;4. Department of Occupational Therapy, Hanseo University, 360, Daegok-ri, Haemi-myun, Seosan-si, Chungcheongnam-do 356-705, Republic of Korea;5. Department of Physical Therapy, Daejeon Health and Sciences College, 77-3, Gayang 2-Dong, Dong-gu, Daejeon 300-711, Republic of Korea;1. Department of Physical Therapy, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Evin, Koodakyar Avenue, P.O Box 1985713834, Tehran, Iran;2. Department of Physical Therapy, Rehabilitation Faculty, Tehran University of Medical Sciences and Health Services, Tehran, Iran;3. Rehabilitation Faculty, Iran Medical Sciences University, Tehran, Iran;4. Department of Biomechanics and Sport Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran;1. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Texas Health Science Center – Houston, Houston, TX 77030, United States;2. Neurorehabilitation Research Laboratory, TIRR Memorial Hermann Hospital, Houston, TX 77030, United States;3. Sensory Motor Performance Program, Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States;4. Biomedical Engineering Program, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China;1. Department of Neurology at Wake Forest School of Medicine, Medical Center Blvd, Winston-Salem, NC, USA;2. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, National INeurolnstitutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA;3. Departments of Neurology and Clinical Neurophysiology, Elisabeth-Tweesteden Hospital, Tilburg, The Netherlands;4. Department of Neurology, Neuromuscular Division, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA;5. Don Carlo Gnocchi ONLUS Foundation, Piazzale Rodolfo Morandi, 6, 20121 Milan, Italy;6. Department of Geriatrics, Neurosciences and Orthopaedics, Universita Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy;7. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA;8. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, OhioHealth Riverside Methodist Hospital, Columbus, OH, USA;9. OhioHealth McConnell Spine, Sport and Joint Center, Columbus, OH, USA;10. Neurological Institute, University Hospitals, Cleveland Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA;11. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA;12. Hans Berger Department of Neurology, Jena University Hospital, Jena 07747, Germany;13. Department of Neurology and Clinical Neurophysiology, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition, and Behaviour, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands;14. Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt;15. Department of Neurology, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University Singapore, Singapore;p. Department of Neurology, Kantonsspital Lucerne, Switzerland;q. Department of Neurology, Inselspital Berne, Switzerland;r. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Korea University Guro Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea;s. Department of Neurology, Korea University Anam Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea;t. Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital and University of Ottawa, Canada;u. Deparment of Clinical Neurophysiology, East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust, Canterbury, Kent, UK;v. Department of Neurology, University Hospital Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany;w. Division of Neuromuscular Medicine, Department of Neurology, Washington University in St. Louis, 660 S. Euclid Ave, Box 8111, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA |
| |
| Abstract: | In this study, we aimed to compare the intrarater reliability and validity of muscle thickness measured using ultrasonography (US) and muscle activity via electromyography (EMG) during manual muscle testing (MMT) of the external oblique (EO) and lumbar multifidus (MF) muscles. The study subjects were 30 healthy individuals who underwent MMT at different grades. EMG was used to measure the muscle activity in terms of ratio to maximum voluntary contraction (MVC) and root mean square (RMS) metrics. US was used to measure the raw muscle thickness, the ratio of muscle thickness at MVC, and the ratio of muscle thickness at rest. One examiner performed measurements on each subject in 3 trials. The intrarater reliabilities of the % MVC RMS and raw RMS metrics for EMG and the % MVC thickness metrics for US were excellent (ICC = 0.81–0.98). There was a significant difference between all the grades measured using the % MVC thickness metric (p < 0.01). Further, this % MVC thickness metric of US showed a significantly higher correlation with the EMG measurement methods than with the others (r = 0.51–0.61). Our findings suggest that the % MVC thickness determined by US was the most sensitive of all methods for assessing the MMT grade. |
| |
| Keywords: | Electromyography Reliability Ultrasonography Validity |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
