Lohmann Lars Hubertus, Hillebrecht Martin, Schiemann Stephan, Warneke Konstantin
University Sport Center, Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.
Department of Human Movement Science and Exercise Physiology, Institute of Sport Science, Friedrich Schiller University, Jena, Germany.
Sports Med Open. 2024 Aug 15;10(1):89. doi: 10.1186/s40798-024-00755-z.
The majority of studies that explore changes in musculature following resistance training interventions or examine atrophy due to immobilization or sarcopenia use ultrasound imaging. While most studies assume acceptable to excellent reliability, there seems to be unawareness of the existing absolute measurement errors. As early as 1998, methodological research addressed a collective unawareness of the random measurement error and its practical indications. Referring to available methodological approaches, within this work, we point out the limited value of focusing on relative, correlation-based reliability indices for the interpretability in scientific research but also for clinical application by assessing 1,512 muscle thickness values from more than 400 ultrasound images. To account for intra- and inter-day repeatability, data were collected on two consecutive days within four testing sessions. Commonly-stated reliability values (ICC, CV, SEM and MDC) were calculated, while evidence-based agreement analyses were applied to provide the accompanied systematic and random measurement error.
While ICCs in the range of 0.832 to 0.998 are in accordance with the available literature, the mean absolute percentage error ranges from 1.34 to 20.38% and the mean systematic bias from 0.78 to 4.01 mm (all p ≤ 0.013), depending on the measurement time points chosen for data processing.
In accordance with prior literature, a more cautious interpretation of relative reliability values should be based on included systematic and random absolute measurement scattering. Lastly, this paper discusses the rationale for including different measurement error statistics when determining the validity of pre-post changes, thus, accounting for the certainty of evidence.
大多数探索抗阻训练干预后肌肉组织变化或研究因固定不动或肌肉减少症导致的萎缩的研究都使用超声成像。虽然大多数研究认为可靠性可接受或极佳，但似乎并未意识到现有的绝对测量误差。早在1998年，方法学研究就指出了对随机测量误差及其实际影响的普遍忽视。参照现有的方法学方法，在本研究中，我们通过评估来自400多张超声图像的1512个肌肉厚度值，指出了关注基于相关性的相对可靠性指标在科学研究解释性方面以及临床应用中的有限价值。为了考虑日内和日间重复性，在四个测试时段内连续两天收集数据。计算了常用的可靠性值（ICC、CV、SEM和MDC），同时应用基于证据的一致性分析来提供伴随的系统和随机测量误差。
虽然0.832至0.998范围内的ICC与现有文献一致，但平均绝对百分比误差范围为1.34%至20.38%，平均系统偏差为0.78至4.01毫米（所有p≤0.013），这取决于为数据处理选择的测量时间点。
与先前文献一致，对相对可靠性值的更谨慎解释应基于所包含的系统和随机绝对测量离散度。最后，本文讨论了在确定前后变化的有效性时纳入不同测量误差统计数据的基本原理，从而考虑证据的确定性。
