Interrater and Intrarater Reliability of Electrical Impedance Myography: A Comparison between Large and Small Handheld Electrode Arrays.
Journal
Journal of healthcare engineering
ISSN: 2040-2309
Titre abrégé: J Healthc Eng
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101528166
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
13
05
2021
revised:
28
07
2021
accepted:
19
10
2021
entrez:
12
11
2021
pubmed:
13
11
2021
medline:
5
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The objective of this study was to evaluate the interrater and intrarater reliability of electrical impedance myography (EIM) using handheld sensors of different sizes. Electrical impedance myography of the biceps brachii muscle of twenty healthy individuals was performed by two raters using both large and small sensors. The procedures were also repeated 5 to 8 days after the first recording session. The repeatability of the resistance, reactance, and phase angle at two different current frequencies (50 and 100 kHz) was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The ICCs of the large sensor were higher than those of the small sensor for both the intrarater and interrater reliabilities. High-frequency current tended to improve the ICC for the small sensor. These results indicate reasonable repeatability of the handheld electrode arrays for EIM measurements. The findings suggest that electrode array should be selected appropriately according to the size of the tested muscle.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34765103
doi: 10.1155/2021/7296322
pmc: PMC8577940
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
7296322Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Huijing Hu et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Références
Muscle Nerve. 2009 Jan;39(1):16-24
pubmed: 19058193
Med Biol Eng Comput. 1984 Nov;22(6):569-77
pubmed: 6503387
J Clin Neuromuscul Dis. 2009 Mar;10(3):90-6
pubmed: 19258856
PLoS One. 2016 May 26;11(5):e0156154
pubmed: 27227876
Clin Neurophysiol. 2006 Jun;117(6):1244-8
pubmed: 16644269
PLoS One. 2012;7(9):e45004
pubmed: 23028733
Clin Neurophysiol. 2015 Sep;126(9):1790-6
pubmed: 25533276
Muscle Nerve. 2009 Dec;40(6):936-46
pubmed: 19768754
Clin Neurophysiol. 2005 Feb;116(2):290-9
pubmed: 15661107
Muscle Nerve. 2017 Nov;56(5):887-895
pubmed: 28056494
Front Neurol. 2017 Jun 20;8:253
pubmed: 28676786
J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2018 Apr;9(2):269-278
pubmed: 29349935
Muscle Nerve. 2002 Mar;25(3):390-7
pubmed: 11870716
Physiol Meas. 2005 Apr;26(2):S133-43
pubmed: 15798226
Muscle Nerve. 2008 May;37(5):560-5
pubmed: 18404614
Muscle Nerve. 2012 May;45(5):642-7
pubmed: 22499089
Muscle Nerve. 2014 Jun;49(6):829-35
pubmed: 24752469
Muscle Nerve. 2012 Aug;46(2):257-63
pubmed: 22806375
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1998 Jul;45(7):877-84
pubmed: 9644896
Muscle Nerve. 2010 Dec;42(6):915-21
pubmed: 21104866
Clin Neurophysiol. 2017 Nov;128(11):2242-2247
pubmed: 29024874
Physiol Meas. 2013 Nov;34(11):1513-29
pubmed: 24149840
Clin Neurophysiol. 2013 Feb;124(2):400-4
pubmed: 22917581
Physiol Meas. 2006 Dec;27(12):1269-79
pubmed: 17135699
J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2003 Jun;13(3):273-9
pubmed: 12706606
Clin Neurophysiol. 2015 Jan;126(1):202-8
pubmed: 24929900
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2013 May;60(5):1446-52
pubmed: 23314763
Physiol Meas. 1999 Nov;20(4):R1-10
pubmed: 10593226
Front Physiol. 2021 May 07;12:666964
pubmed: 34025454
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2017 Nov;25(11):2113-2121
pubmed: 28574361
Muscle Nerve. 2015 Oct;52(4):592-7
pubmed: 25702806
Phys Med Biol. 1999 Oct;44(10):2409-29
pubmed: 10533919