External abdominal oblique muscle ultrasonographic thickness changes is not an appropriate surrogate measure of electromyographic activity during isometric trunk contractions
Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation, ISSN: 1878-6324, Vol: 28, Issue: 2, Page: 229-238
2015
- 2Citations
- 1Usage
- 33Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations2
- Citation Indexes2
- CrossRef2
- Usage1
- Abstract Views1
- Captures33
- Readers33
- 33
Article Description
BACKGROUND: The function of specific abdominal muscles can be assessed using both electromyography (EMG) and ultrasound imaging (USI) thickness measures. However, the relationship between these two measurements is not conclusive during sitting isometric trunk efforts. OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to assess the relationship between USI thickness and EMG amplitude measures of the right external oblique (EO) muscle during isometric efforts in the sitting position. METHOD: Eighteen subjects performed ramp isometric efforts progressing from 0 to 50% of their maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) in three trunk directions on a dynamometer: (1) forward flexion; (2) right lateral flexion; and (3) left axial rotation. USI and surface EMG amplitude measures of the EO muscle were recorded concomitantly and both normalized against rest values and maximal EMG, respectively. RESULTS: EO muscle was significantly more activated (p < 0.001) during forward flexion (42% on average) and axial rotation (35%) than during lateral flexion (24%). Non-significant (r=0.01; P=0.979) to highly significant (r=0.98; P < 0.0001) and negative and positive Pearson correlations were observed between EMG and EO thickness measures for both flexion and rotation directions. CONCLUSION: The negative correlations between EMG and USI measures as well as the great variability of these correlations across individuals suggest that USI is not a valid measures of EO muscle activity. USI thickness measures should be interpreted with great caution in research and clinical settings.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84926450981&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/bmr-140508; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25134839; https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.3233/BMR-140508; http://www.medra.org/servlet/aliasResolver?alias=iospress&doi=10.3233/BMR-140508; https://pharesst.irsst.qc.ca/etudes-primaires/32; https://pharesst.irsst.qc.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1031&context=etudes-primaires; http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/BMR-140508; https://dx.doi.org/10.3233/BMR-140508; https://content.iospress.com:443/articles/journal-of-back-and-musculoskeletal-rehabilitation/bmr00508
SAGE Publications
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know