A-Mode Ultrasound Reliability in Fat and Muscle Thickness Measurement.
Journal
Journal of strength and conditioning research
ISSN: 1533-4287
Titre abrégé: J Strength Cond Res
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9415084
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Jun 2022
01 Jun 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
23
6
2020
medline:
1
6
2022
entrez:
23
6
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Ribeiro, G, de Aguiar, RA, Penteado, R, Lisbôa, FD, Raimundo, JAG, Loch, T, Meira, Â, Turnes, T, and Caputo, F. A-mode ultrasound reliability in fat and muscle thickness measurement. J Strength Cond Res 36(6): 1610-1617, 2022-This study aimed to verify the reliability of the BodyMetrix portable A-mode ultrasound in measuring fat and muscle tissue thickness. Thirty physically active men participated in daily body composition evaluations. The evaluations comprised 2 techniques: (a) graphic technique (GTBM), which measured the fat thickness at 9 body sites (abdomen, axillary, biceps brachii, calf, chest, subscapular, suprailiac, thigh, and triceps brachii), and (b) imaging technique (ITBM), which simultaneously measured the fat and muscle thickness of 6 body surfaces (abdomen, biceps brachii, chest, thigh, trapezius, and triceps brachii). Regarding GTBM, relative reliability was moderate to excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]: 0.81-0.98), whereas absolute reliability was acceptable for abdomen, calf, chest, subscapular, suprailiac, and triceps brachii (coefficient of variation [CV]: 6.9-8.8%) but high for axillary, biceps brachii, and thigh (CV: 12.0-17.4%) in measuring fat thicknesses. Concerning ITBM, relative reliability was good to excellent (ICC: 0.93-0.99 and 0.90-0.98), whereas absolute reliability was acceptable (CV: 3.0-9.2% and 3.5-5.9%) in measuring fat and muscle thickness, respectively. These findings suggest that the, GTBM was only reliable in measuring fat thickness of abdomen, calf, chest, subscapular, suprailiac, and triceps brachii, whereas ITBM was reliable in measuring both fat and muscle thickness in all regions, but showed better reliability values in measuring muscle than fat thickness.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32569121
pii: 00124278-202206000-00019
doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003691
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1610-1617Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 National Strength and Conditioning Association.
Références
Ackland TR, Lohman TG, Sundgot-Borgen J, et al. Current status of body composition assessment in sport. Sports Med 42: 227–249, 2012.
Atkinson G, Nevill AM. Statistical methods for assessing measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine. Sports Med 26: 217–238, 1998.
Baranauskas MN, Johnson KE, Juvancic-Heltzel JA, et al. Seven-site versus three-site method of body composition using BodyMetrix ultrasound compared to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging 37: 317–321, 2017.
Hopkins WG. Measures of reliability in sports medicine and science. Sports Med 30: 1–15, 2000.
IntelaMetrix. BodyMetrix™ System User's Guide. Livermore, CA, 2010. Available at: http://bodytastic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/BodyMetrix-Professional-Windows-Users-Guide.pdf . Accessed March 5, 2020.
Jackson AS, Pollock ML. Practical assessment of body composition. Phys Sportsmed 13: 76–90, 1985.
Johnson KE, Miller B, Gibson AL, et al. A comparison of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, air displacement plethysmography and A-mode ultrasound to assess body composition in college-age adults. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging 37: 646–654, 2017.
Kispert CP, Merrifield HH. Interrater reliability of skinfold fat measurements. Phys Ther 67: 917–920, 1987.
Klemp A, Dolan C, Quiles JM, et al. Volume-equated high- and low-repetition daily undulating programming strategies produce similar hypertrophy and strength adaptations. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 41: 699–705, 2016.
Koo TK, Li MY. A Guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 15: 155–163, 2016.
Loenneke JP, Barnes JT, Wagganer JD, et al. Validity of a portable computer-based ultrasound system for estimating adipose tissue in female gymnasts. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging 34: 410–412, 2014.
Loenneke JP, Barnes JT, Wagganer JD, et al. Validity and reliability of an ultrasound system for estimating adipose tissue. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging 34: 159–162, 2014.
Müller W, Maughan RJ. The need for a novel approach to measure body composition: Is ultrasound an answer? Br J Sports Med 47: 1001–1002, 2013.
Müller W, Horn M, Fürhapter-Rieger A, et al. Body composition in sport: Interobserver reliability of a novel ultrasound measure of subcutaneous fat tissue. Br J Sports Med 47: 1036–1043, 2013.
Müller W, Horn M, Fürhapter-Rieger A, et al. Body composition in sport: A comparison of a novel ultrasound imaging technique to measure subcutaneous fat tissue compared with skinfold measurement. Br J Sports Med 47: 1028–1035, 2013.
Müller W, Lohman TG, Stewart AD, et al. Subcutaneous fat patterning in athletes: Selection of appropriate sites and standardisation of a novel ultrasound measurement technique: Ad hoc working group on body composition, health and performance, under the auspices of the IOC medical commission. Br J Sports Med 50: 45–54, 2016.
Nijholt W, Scafoglieri A, Jager-Wittenaar H, et al. The reliability and validity of ultrasound to quantify muscles in older adults: A systematic review. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 8: 702–712, 2017.
Reeves ND, Maganaris CN, Narici MV. Ultrasonographic assessment of human skeletal muscle size. Eur J Appl Physiol 91: 116–118, 2004.
Ripka WL, Ulbricht L, Menghin L, et al. Portable A-mode ultrasound for body composition assessment in adolescents. J Ultrasound Med 35: 755–760, 2016.
Schoenfeld BJ, Ratamess NA, Peterson MD, et al. Effects of different volume-equated resistance training loading strategies on muscular adaptations in well-trained men. J Strength Cond Res 28: 2909–2918, 2014.
Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 86: 420–428, 1979.
Silva L. An introduction to ultrasound and the BodyMetrix system. IntelaMetrix, 2010. Available at: https://slideplayer.com/slide/4311444/ . Accessed March 5, 2020.
Smith-Ryan AE, Fultz SN, Melvin MN, et al. Reproducibility and validity of A-mode ultrasound for body composition measurement and classification in overweight and obese men and women. PLoS One 9: e91750, 2014.
Stewart AD, Marfell-Jones M, Olds T, et al. International Standards for Anthropometric Assessment. Lower Hutt, New Zealand: International Society for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry, 2011.
Toomey C, McCreesh K, Leahy S, et al. Technical considerations for accurate measurement of subcutaneous adipose tissue thickness using B-mode ultrasound. Ultrasound 19: 91–96, 2011.
Utter AC, Hager ME. Evaluation of ultrasound in assessing body composition of high school wrestlers. Med Sci Sports Exerc 40: 943–949, 2008.
Wagner DR, Cain DL, Clark NW. Validity and reliability of A-mode ultrasound for body composition assessment of NCAA Division I athletes. PLoS One 11: e0153146, 2016.
Wagner DR, Thompson BJ, Anderson DA, et al. A-mode and B-mode ultrasound measurement of fat thickness: A cadaver validation study. Eur J Clin Nutr 73: 518–523, 2019.
Wagner DR. Ultrasound as a tool to assess body fat. J Obes 2013: 1–9, 2013.
Weir JP. Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res 19: 231–240, 2005.