European journal of clinical investigation · 2015
Reliability tests and guidelines for B-mode ultrasound assessment of central adiposity.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Stoner Lee, Chinn Victoria, Cornwall Jon, Meikle Grant, Page Rachel, Lambrick Danielle, Faulkner James
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Ultrasound represents a validated and relatively inexpensive diagnostic device for assessing central adiposity; however, widespread adoption has been impeded by the lack of reliable standard operating procedures.
PURPOSE: To examine the reliability of, and describe guidelines for, ultrasound-derived recording of intra-abdominal fat thickness (IAT) and maximal preperitoneal fat thickness (PFT).
METHODS: Ultrasound scans were obtained from 20 adults (50% female, 26 ± 7 years, 24·5 kg/m(2) ) on three different mornings. IAT was assessed 2 cm above the umbilicus (transverse plane) measuring from linea alba to: (i) anterior aorta, (ii) posterior aorta and (iii) anterior aspect of the vertebral column. PFT was measured from linea alba to visceral peritoneum in (i) sagittal and (ii) transverse planes, immediately over and inferior to the xiphi-sternum, respectively.
RESULTS: For IAT, the criterion intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0·75 was exceeded for measurements to anterior aorta (0·95), posterior aorta (0·94) and vertebra (0·96). The reliability coefficient expressed as a percentage of the mean (RC%) was lowest (better) for measurement to vertebrae (9·8%). For PFT, mean thickness was comparable for sagittal (1·74 cm) and transverse (1·76 cm) planes; ICC values were also comparable for both planes (0·98 vs. 0·98, respectively), as were RC% (7·5% vs. 7·1%, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: IAT assessments to the vertebra were marginally more reliable than those to other structures. While PFT assessments were equally reliable for both measurements planes, precise probe placement was easier for the sagittal plane. Based on these findings, guidelines for the reliable measurement of central adiposity using ultrasound are presented.
PURPOSE: To examine the reliability of, and describe guidelines for, ultrasound-derived recording of intra-abdominal fat thickness (IAT) and maximal preperitoneal fat thickness (PFT).
METHODS: Ultrasound scans were obtained from 20 adults (50% female, 26 ± 7 years, 24·5 kg/m(2) ) on three different mornings. IAT was assessed 2 cm above the umbilicus (transverse plane) measuring from linea alba to: (i) anterior aorta, (ii) posterior aorta and (iii) anterior aspect of the vertebral column. PFT was measured from linea alba to visceral peritoneum in (i) sagittal and (ii) transverse planes, immediately over and inferior to the xiphi-sternum, respectively.
RESULTS: For IAT, the criterion intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0·75 was exceeded for measurements to anterior aorta (0·95), posterior aorta (0·94) and vertebra (0·96). The reliability coefficient expressed as a percentage of the mean (RC%) was lowest (better) for measurement to vertebrae (9·8%). For PFT, mean thickness was comparable for sagittal (1·74 cm) and transverse (1·76 cm) planes; ICC values were also comparable for both planes (0·98 vs. 0·98, respectively), as were RC% (7·5% vs. 7·1%, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: IAT assessments to the vertebra were marginally more reliable than those to other structures. While PFT assessments were equally reliable for both measurements planes, precise probe placement was easier for the sagittal plane. Based on these findings, guidelines for the reliable measurement of central adiposity using ultrasound are presented.