4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Concurrent Validity and Reliability of Manual Versus Specific Device Transcostal Measurements for Breathing Diaphragm Thickness by Ultrasonography in Lumbopelvic Pain Athletes

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The use of rehabilitative ultrasound imaging (RUSI) to evaluate diaphragm thickness during breathing in athletes who suffer from non-specific lumbopelvic pain presents some measurement errors. The purpose of this study was to evaluate intra- and inter-sessions, intra- and inter-rater reliabilities, and concurrent validity of diaphragm thickness measurements during breathing using transcostal RUSI with a novel thoracic orthotic device that was used to fix the US probe versus those measurements obtained using manual fixation. A total of 37 athletes with non-specific lumbopelvic pain were recruited. Intra- (same examiner) and inter-rater (two examiners) and intra- (same day) and inter-session (alternate days) reliabilities were analyzed. All measurements were obtained after manual probe fixation and after positioning the thoracic orthotic device to fix the US probe in order to correctly correlate both measurement methods. Both left and right hemi-diaphragm thickness measurements were performed by transcostal RUSI at maximum inspiration, expiration, and the difference between the two parameters during relaxed breathing. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC), standard errors of measurement (SEM), minimum detectable changes (MCD), systematic errors, and correlations ( r) were assessed. Orthotic device probe fixation showed excellent reliability (ICC = 0.852–0.996, SEM = 0.0002–0.054, and MDC = 0.002–0.072), and most measurements did not show significant systematic errors ( p > 0.05). Despite manual probe fixation with a reliability ranging from good to excellent (ICC = 0.714–0.997, SEM = 0.003–0.023, and MDC = 0.008–0.064 cm), several significant systematic measurement errors ( p < 0.05) were found. Most significant correlations between both orthotic device and manual probe fixation methods were moderate ( r = 0.486–0.718; p < 0.05). Bland–Altman plots indicated adequate agreement between both measurement methods according to the agreement limits. The proposed novel thoracic orthotic device may allow ultrasound probe fixation to provide valid and reliable transcostal RUSI measurements of diaphragmatic thickness during relaxed breathing thus reducing some measurement errors and avoiding systematic measurement errors. It may be advisable to measure diaphragm thickness and facilitate visual biofeedback with respect to diaphragm re-education during normal breathing in athletes with non-specific lumbopelvic pain.

          Related collections

          Most cited references51

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A power primer.

          One possible reason for the continued neglect of statistical power analysis in research in the behavioral sciences is the inaccessibility of or difficulty with the standard material. A convenient, although not comprehensive, presentation of required sample sizes is provided here. Effect-size indexes and conventional values for these are given for operationally defined small, medium, and large effects. The sample sizes necessary for .80 power to detect effects at these levels are tabled for eight standard statistical tests: (a) the difference between independent means, (b) the significance of a product-moment correlation, (c) the difference between independent rs, (d) the sign test, (e) the difference between independent proportions, (f) chi-square tests for goodness of fit and contingency tables, (g) one-way analysis of variance, and (h) the significance of a multiple or multiple partial correlation.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies

            Incomplete reporting has been identified as a major source of avoidable waste in biomedical research. Essential information is often not provided in study reports, impeding the identification, critical appraisal, and replication of studies. To improve the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies, the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) statement was developed. Here we present STARD 2015, an updated list of 30 essential items that should be included in every report of a diagnostic accuracy study. This update incorporates recent evidence about sources of bias and variability in diagnostic accuracy and is intended to facilitate the use of STARD. As such, STARD 2015 may help to improve completeness and transparency in reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Academic Editor
                Journal
                Sensors (Basel)
                Sensors (Basel)
                sensors
                Sensors (Basel, Switzerland)
                MDPI
                1424-8220
                24 June 2021
                July 2021
                : 21
                : 13
                : 4329
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Faculty of Nursing, Physiotherapy and Podiatry, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain; daniel.marugan@ 123456lasallecampus.es (D.M.-R.); ribebeva@ 123456ucm.es (R.B.-d.-B.-V.); davidrodriguezsanz@ 123456ucm.es (D.R.-S.); cescalvo@ 123456ucm.es (C.C.-L.)
                [2 ]Grupo FEBIO, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain; jlopezch@ 123456ucm.es
                [3 ]Faculty of Health Sciences, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, 28922 Madrid, Spain; marta.losa@ 123456urjc.es
                [4 ]Faculty of Health Sciences, Universidad Francisco de Vitoria, Pozuelo de Alarcón, 28223 Madrid, Spain
                [5 ]Centro Superior de Estudios Universitarios La Salle, 28023 Madrid, Spain; gabriel.davila@ 123456lasallecampus.es
                Author notes
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1568-7602
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7588-2069
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1467-4175
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6569-1311
                Article
                sensors-21-04329
                10.3390/s21134329
                8272009
                34202716
                d491396a-a004-4ce3-aeab-b5a436e25c2b
                © 2021 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 28 April 2021
                : 21 June 2021
                Categories
                Article

                Biomedical engineering
                low back pain,repeatability,respiration,ultrasonography,validity
                Biomedical engineering
                low back pain, repeatability, respiration, ultrasonography, validity

                Comments

                Comment on this article