IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0207847.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quantifying skeletal muscle volume and shape in humans using MRI: A systematic review of validity and reliability

Author

Listed:
  • Christelle Pons
  • Bhushan Borotikar
  • Marc Garetier
  • Valérie Burdin
  • Douraied Ben Salem
  • Mathieu Lempereur
  • Sylvain Brochard

Abstract

Aims: The aim of this study was to report the metrological qualities of techniques currently used to quantify skeletal muscle volume and 3D shape in healthy and pathological muscles. Methods: A systematic review was conducted (Prospero CRD42018082708). PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane and Scopus databases were searched using relevant keywords and inclusion/exclusion criteria. The quality of the articles was evaluated using a customized scale. Results: Thirty articles were included, 6 of which included pathological muscles. Most evaluated lower limb muscles. Partially or completely automatic and manual techniques were assessed in 10 and 24 articles, respectively. Manual slice-by-slice segmentation reliability was good-to-excellent (n = 8 articles) and validity against dissection was moderate to good(n = 1). Manual slice-by-slice segmentation was used as a gold-standard method in the other articles. Reduction of the number of manually segmented slices (n = 6) provided good to excellent validity if a sufficient number of appropriate slices was chosen. Segmentation on one slice (n = 11) increased volume errors. The Deformation of a Parametric Specific Object (DPSO) method (n = 5) decreased the number of manually-segmented slices required for any chosen level of error. Other automatic techniques combined with different statistical shape or atlas/images-based methods (n = 4) had good validity. Some particularities were highlighted for specific muscles. Except for manual slice by slice segmentation, reliability has rarely been reported. Conclusions: The results of this systematic review help the choice of appropriate segmentation techniques, according to the purpose of the measurement. In healthy populations, techniques that greatly simplified the process of manual segmentation yielded greater errors in volume and shape estimations. Reduction of the number of manually segmented slices was possible with appropriately chosen segmented slices or with DPSO. Other automatic techniques showed promise, but data were insufficient for their validation. More data on the metrological quality of techniques used in the cases of muscle pathology are required.

Suggested Citation

  • Christelle Pons & Bhushan Borotikar & Marc Garetier & Valérie Burdin & Douraied Ben Salem & Mathieu Lempereur & Sylvain Brochard, 2018. "Quantifying skeletal muscle volume and shape in humans using MRI: A systematic review of validity and reliability," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(11), pages 1-26, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0207847
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207847
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0207847
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0207847&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0207847?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0207847. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.