Skip to main content
Download PDF

Reliability and validity of ultrasonography in evaluating the thickness, excursion, stiffness, and strain rate of respiratory muscles in non-hospitalized individuals: a systematic review

BMC Oral Health volume 23, Article number: 959 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Objective

To summarize the reliability and validity of ultrasonography in evaluating the stiffness, excursion, stiffness, or strain rate of diaphragm, intercostals and abdominal muscles in healthy or non-hospitalized individuals.

Literature search

PubMed, Embase, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to May 30, 2022.

Study selection criteria

Case–control, cross-sectional, and longitudinal studies were included if they investigated the reliability or validity of various ultrasonography technologies (e.g., brightness-mode, motion-mode, shear wave elastography) in measuring the thickness, excursion, stiffness, or strain rate of any respiratory muscles.

Data synthesis

Relevant data were summarized based on healthy and different patient populations. The methodological quality by different checklist depending on study design. The quality of evidence of each psychometric property was graded by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations, respectively.

Results

This review included 24 studies with 787 healthy or non-hospitalized individuals (e.g., lower back pain (LBP), adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)). Both inspiratory (diaphragm and intercostal muscles) and expiratory muscles (abdominal muscles) were investigated. Moderate-quality evidence supported sufficient (intra-class correlation coefficient > 0.7) within-day intra-rater reliability of B-mode ultrasonography in measuring right diaphragmatic thickness among people with LBP, sufficient between-day intra-rater reliability of M-mode ultrasonography in measuring right diaphragmatic excursion in non-hospitalized individuals. The quality of evidence for all other measurement properties in various populations was low or very low. High-quality evidence supported sufficient positive correlations between diaphragm excursion and forced expiratory volume in the first second or forced vital capacity (r >  = 0.3) in healthy individuals.

Conclusions

Despite the reported sufficient reliability and validity of using ultrasonography to assess the thickness, excursion, stiffness, and strain rate of respiratory muscles in non-hospitalized individuals, further large-scale studies are warranted to improve the quality of evidence regarding using ultrasonography for these measurements in clinical practice. Researchers should establish their own reliability before using various types of ultrasonography to evaluate respiratory muscle functions.

Trial registration

PROSPERO NO. CRD42022322945.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

The diaphragm is a dome-shaped muscle that separates the thoracic and abdominal cavities [1]. In addition to being the principal inspiratory muscle that contributes to 70–90% of tidal volume in different positions [2], the diaphragm also plays an essential role in the visceral system as well as the musculoskeletal system. Specifically, it involves in the functioning of various internal organs such as emesis, urination, defecation, and the prevention of gastroesophageal reflux [3,4,5]. Further, the diaphragm harmoniously controls inspiration and postural control, stabilizes the lumbar spine, and contributes to optimal performance of daily activities or sports [6,7,8,9].

Because the diaphragm works synergically with parasternal and external intercostals to expand the rib cage during inspiration [10, 11], uncoordinated contraction of synergists can increase the work of breathing and increases the burden of the diaphragm [10]. Likewise, while abdominal muscles serve as the force-expiratory muscles when respiratory loading increases [10, 11], the tonic activity of abdominal muscles helps maintain the optimal length of diaphragm for better force generation during the inspiration in an upright position [12]. Therefore, it is essential to comprehensively evaluate various respiratory muscles (e.g., intercostals and abdominal muscles) by reliable objective assessments in order to better assess diaphragmatic function in individuals, and to inform clinical decision-making.

Ultrasonography (USG) is a non-invasive in vivo ultrasound imaging approach to evaluate the morphometry, function, or mechanical properties of soft tissues with different imaging modes [13, 14]. Prior research has used brightness-mode (B-mode) and motion-mode (M-mode) USG to assess the thickness and excursion of diaphragm, respectively in critically ill patients (e.g., ventilated patients) in order to estimate the inspiratory function of diaphragm [15, 16]. Diaphragm thickness fraction as measured by B-mode USG is used as a predictor for successful weaning in ventilated patients [13, 14, 17]. Although previous systematic reviews have supported the reliability and validity of B-mode USG in assessing the morphometry of diaphragm in ventilated patients [18, 19], their findings cannot be generalized to non-hospitalized individuals given the diverse functions of diaphragm in different conditions. Additionally, although some studies have used B-mode and M-mode USG to investigate the morphometry and mobility of intercostals and abdominal muscles in different populations [20,21,22], no systematic review has summarized the reliability or validity of such USG in these respiration-related muscles in non-hospitalized individuals.

Ultrasound shear wave elastography (SWE) is another type of USG that has recently been used to measure respiratory muscle stiffness [23,24,25,26]. SWE is an objective, and reproducible method to quantify the mechanical properties of soft tissues [27, 28], although there are some concerns regarding the validity of using SWE to measure biomechanical properties of the diaphragm [29]. Given the controversy, it is important to conduct a systematic review to summarize the reliability and validity of SWE in measuring respiratory muscle stiffness.

Against this background, the current systematic review aimed to summarize the evidence regarding the reliability and validity of various types of USG (including SWE) in evaluating the thickness, excursion, stiffness, or strain rate of diaphragm, intercostal muscles or abdominal muscles in non-hospitalized patients and healthy individuals.

Methods

This review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022322945) and was reported according to the guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses [30].

Literature search

PubMed, Embase, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL and Cochrane Library were systematically searched from inception to May 30, 2022 to identify relevant studies without language restrictions. The main keywords were reliability, validity, ultrasonography, shear wave elastography, and respiratory muscles. Relevant search strings with Boolean operators and linking terms were used (Supplementary File-S 1). Forward citation tracking of the included studies was conducted using Scopus. Backward citation tracking was also conducted. The corresponding authors were contacted by emails for additional relevant articles.

Eligibility criteria

Case–control, cross-sectional, and longitudinal studies were included if they investigated the reliability or validity of various types of USG in measuring the morphometry, function, or mechanical properties of any respiratory muscles. Animal and cadaveric studies, reviews, case reports, commentaries, and letters to the editors were excluded. Two reviewers (FZ and XH) independently performed title and abstract screening of the identified citations according to the selection criteria. Between-reviewer disagreements were reconciled by consensus, or by the jurisdiction of a third reviewer (AW). Relevant full-text articles were retrieved. The same procedure was repeated for the full-text screening. Between-reviewer agreements were evaluated by Kappa coefficients (κ).

Data extraction

Two independent reviewers (FZ and CH) extracted relevant information from the included studies: (1) authors’ information (e.g., names, publication year, country); (2) study characteristics (e.g., study design, setting); (3) assessor’s information; (4) participants’ demographics (e.g., gender, age, types of population); (5) measurements (e.g., types of USG used and assessment locations); (6) outcomes (e.g., intra- or inter-rater reliability, which might be expressed as intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) or kappa coefficients and the respective 95% confidence interval (95%CI); and convergent/divergent validity). Any disagreements in data extraction were resolved by discussion or by the judgment of the third reviewer (AW).

Quality assessments and quality of evidence

The Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies. Clinician‐Reported Outcome Measures (ClinROMs) checklist [31] was used to assess the quality of the included reliability studies. Patient‐Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) checklist [32] was used to evaluate the quality of validity studies (using Boxes 9a and 9b to evaluate studies investigating convergent validity and discriminative/known-groups validity, respectively). The methodological quality of the included studies was rated as “very good, adequate, doubtful, or inadequate” using the “worst-score counts” principle [31, 32].

Against the updated criteria for good measurement properties [32] (Supplementary File-S 2), the reliability and validity of various types of USG in each included study was rated as sufficient (“ + ”), insufficient (“-”), or indeterminate (“?)”. Likewise, the overall quality of evidence for reliability and validity of various types of USG for a given muscle assessment was first checked against the criteria for good measurement properties [32] (Supplementary File-S 2) to determine the overall consistency of each measurement property as “sufficient ( +), insufficient (-), inconsistent ( ±), or indeterminate (?)”. Then, the quality of evidence for each measurement property in overall population and each subgroup (different populations in the included studies) was graded as “high, moderate, low, or very low” using the modified GRADE approach as suggested by COSMIN [32] (Supplementary File-S 3). These processes were conducted by two independent reviewers (FZ and CH). Any disagreements were resolved by discussion or by the judgment of a third reviewer (AW).

Data synthesis

Data were categorized and analyzed according to different patient populations. Although meta-analysis using random effects models in RevMan 5 was planned, it was infeasible to conduct the meta-analysis because no outcome of interest was evaluated under the same condition (e.g., USG modes, probe locations, participants’ positions, breathing phases) in two or more studies. Therefore, a narrative review was conducted.

Results

Study selection

Of 1,110 identified citations from databases and other sources, 395 were included for the title and abstract screening after removing duplicates. Following the full-text screening, 24 articles were included (Figure 1). The inter-rater agreement for title and abstract and full text screening were good (κ = 0.88, 95%CI: 0.80 to 0.96) and adequate (κ = 0.73, 95%CI: 0.57 to 0.88), respectively [33].

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow chart of study selection inclusion into the systematic review

Full size image

Study characteristics

The 24 included studies were published between 1998 and 2021 involving 787 participants (aged: 12–70 years) (Table 1). Twenty-one included studies reported reliability (20 on intra-rater and 13 on inter-rater reliability) and eight reported validity (6 on convergent validity and 3 on discriminative/known-groups validity). Four included studies involved people with LBP (n = 73, aged: 20–50 years), two involved people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (n = 63, aged: 57–79 years), two involved teenagers with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) (n = 48, aged: 12–17 years, Cobb angles ranging from 12°-47°), and the remaining studies involved healthy individuals (n = 603, aged: 11–70 years). Three respiratory muscles were investigated. Specifically, 19 included studies examined the diaphragm (12 only on the right side, and 7 on both sides), three assessed intercostal muscles, and one evaluated abdominal muscles. Twelve included studies used B-mode USG to measure muscle thickness and nine used M-mode USG to measure muscle excursions. Four included studies used SWE to measure muscle stiffness. Two included studies measured strain rate using speckle tracking imaging (STI), and one measured diaphragmatic motion velocity using tissue doppler imaging (TDI)). The examiners’ experiences ranged from experienced (n = 13), novice (n = 4), to unspecified (n = 9).

Table 1 Characteristics of included studies
Full size table

Ultrasound measurement approach

Eight included articles measured the thickness [35, 38,39,40,41, 43, 48, 52], nine measured excursion [36, 37, 42,43,44,45, 47, 49, 52], three measured stiffness [23, 24, 26], two measured strain [46, 47], and one measured motion velocity of diaphragm [50]; one included study measured the thickness [51], and one measured stiffness of intercostal muscles [25]; one included study measured the thickness of transverse abdominals and internus obliquus with different approaches [34]. The details of each measurement approach are described in Supplementary File-S 4.

Reliability

Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the reliability of using different types of USG to measure various respiratory muscle characteristics in different populations. Tables 2 and Supplementary File-S 5 show the COSMIN scores and the rating of each study, as well as the quality of evidence regarding the reliability of each type of respiratory muscle measurement based on all included studies and separated populations, respectively. Overall, moderate-quality evidence supported sufficient within-day intra-rater reliability measuring right diaphragm thickness and sufficient between-day intra-rater reliability measuring right diaphragm excursion with B-mode and M-mode USG. The quality of evidence for the measurement properties was low or very low.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Reliability of healthy population

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Reliability of LBP, AIS, and COPD population

Full size image
Table 2 Quality assessments and level of evidence based on all included studies – reliability
Full size table

Findings for different populations

Healthy individuals

Diaphragm thickness: intra- and inter-rater reliability

Seven included studies [35, 38,39,40, 43, 47, 48] examined the reliability of using B-mode USG for diaphragm thickness measurements in healthy individuals. Two included studies reported sufficient within-day intra-rater reliability of measuring left hemidiaphragm thickness by experienced operators (ICC = 0.72–0.94) [39, 43] but insufficient within-day intra-rater reliability for novice operators (ICC = 0.39) [39]. Likewise, two included studies reported sufficient within-day intra-rater reliability of measuring right hemidiaphragm thickness by experienced operators (ICC = 0.75–0.93) [39, 43] or an operator of unknown experience (ICC = 0.84–0.90) [48], but insufficient within-day intra-rater reliability by novice operators (ICC = 0.61–0.95) [38, 39]. One included study reported sufficient between-day intra-rater reliability for an experienced operator to measure right hemidiaphragm thickness (ICC = 0.98) [47]. Two included studies [47, 48] reported sufficient within-day inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.84–0.90) [48] of measuring right hemidiaphragm thickness by an operator of unknown experience, and sufficient inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.95) [47] for experienced operators with unknown years of experience. Two included studies [39, 40] reported sufficient between-day intra- and inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.94–0.98; 0.97–0.98) [40] and insufficient inter-rater (between an experienced and a novice operator) reliability (ICC = 0.55–0.68), although the measurement side was unspecified [39].

Four [35, 38, 43, 47] out of seven (57%) included studies were rated as doubtful for the methodological quality of measuring diaphragm thickness. Two [39, 40] were rated as adequate and one was rated as inadequate [48]. Collectively, the quality of evidence for the intra- and inter-rater reliability of using B-mode USG to measure diaphragm thickness was very low.

Diaphragm excursion: intra- and inter-rater reliability

Four included studies [36, 37, 47, 49] reported the reliability of using M-mode USG to measure left [37] and right [36, 37, 47, 49] diaphragm excursion by experienced operators, but the methodological quality of these studies was doubtful. The between-day intra-rater reliability was consistently reported as sufficient on both sides (ICC = 0.80–0.96) [37, 47]. However, the between-day inter-rater reliability was inconsistent (ICC = 0.63–0.78) because insufficient reliability (ICC = 0.63) was reported when measuring the diaphragm excursion during quiet breathing [49]. One included study reported intra-rater reliability without stating the side of the hemidiaphragm and the measurement interval (ICC = 0.79) [36]. There was low-quality evidence that the between-day intra-rater reliability of M-mode USG in measuring bilateral diaphragmatic excursion was sufficient. The evidence for other excursion measurements was very low.

Diaphragm stiffness: intra- and inter-rater reliability

Two included studies [24, 26] reported the reliability of using SWE to measure right diaphragmatic stiffness. The within-day intra-rater reliability was sufficient (ICC = 0.93) [24], and the COSMIN rating was very good. One included study reported sufficient inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.96) without specifying whether it was within- or between-day measurements [26]. There was low-quality evidence that the within-day intra-rater reliability of SWE in measuring right diaphragmatic stiffness was sufficient.

Diaphragm strain rate and motion velocity: intra- and inter-rater reliability

One included study [47] reported sufficient between-day intra-rater reliability of using STI to measure diaphragmatic strain rate (ICC = 0.96), but COSMIN rating was doubtful, and the evidence was very low. One included study [50] which used TDI to measure diaphragmatic motion velocity without specifying the time interval, and reported sufficient reliability of intra and inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.96–0.99; ICC = 0.89–0.98), but its COSMIN rating was doubtful and evidence was very low.

Intercostal muscle thickness and stiffness: within-day inter-rater reliability

One included study measured intercostal muscle thickness [22] and one measured intercostal muscle stiffness [25]. Both studies reported sufficient within-day inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.92; ICC = 0.80). The COSMIN ratings of both studies were doubtful, and the evidence was very low.

Abdominal muscle thickness: within-day intra- and inter-rater reliability

One included study [34] reported sufficient within-day intra-rater reliability (ICC = 0.76–0.82; ICC = 0.78–0.87) but inconsistent within-day inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.52–0.71; ICC = 0.61–0.78) for using B-mode USG to quantify left transverse abdominals and internal obliquus thickness during different breathing phases. All the evidence was very low.

LBP

Diaphragm thickness: intra- and inter-rater reliability

Three included studies [41, 43, 52] reported sufficient intra- and inter-rater reliability of using B-mode USG for bilateral diaphragmatic thickness measurements by experienced operators (left: ICC = 0.71–0.99; right: ICC = 0.87–0.99). The COSMIN ratings of the three studies were doubtful [43], adequate [52], and very good [41]. Overall, low-quality evidence supported that the within- and between-day intra- and inter-rater reliability of B-mode USG in measuring bilateral diaphragmatic thickness in supine lying individuals with LBP was sufficient.

Diaphragm-excursion: intra- and inter-rater reliability

Two included studies [42, 43] consistently reported sufficient within- (ICC = 0.74–0.76) and between-day intra-rater reliability (ICC = 0.78–0.92) of using M-mode USG to measure the right hemidiaphragm excursion. The COSMIN ratings of both studies were doubtful, and the quality of evidence was very low.

AIS

Diaphragm-excursion and intercostal muscles-stiffness: intra- and inter-rater reliability

Two included studies reported sufficient within-day intra- and inter-rater reliability of using M-mode USG to measure bilateral diaphragmatic excursion (ICC = 0.76–0.99) [44] and using SWE to measure right intercostal muscle stiffness (ICC = 0.80–0.90) [25] in teenagers with AIS. The COMSIN ratings of both studies were doubtful, and the relevant evidence was very low.

COPD

Intercostal muscle thickness: intra- and inter-rater reliability

One included study [51] reported sufficient within-day intra-rater reliability (ICC = 0.77–0.97) and inconsistent within-day inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.60–0.80) for measuring intercostal muscle thickness using B-mode USG. The insufficient result was reported in measuring intercostal muscle thickness at right second and third intercostal levels. The COSMIN rating of this study was doubtful, and the evidence was very low.

Validity

The validity of relevant included studies, the methodological quality assessment of each study, and the relevant evidence are shown in Fig. 4 and Table 3.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Validity of included studies

Full size image
Table 3 Quality assessments and level of evidence – validity
Full size table

Healthy

Convergent validity

Four studies [23, 37, 45, 46] involving 243 healthy participants reported different convergent validity of using different types of USG to evaluate diaphragmatic morphometry or functions. Positive correlations were noted between the diaphragmatic excursion as measured by M-mode USG and radiographic imaging (X-ray) [45], between the diaphragmatic excursion and forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) or forced vital capacity (FVC) [37], as well as between diaphragmatic stiffness [23] or strain rate [46] and transdiaphragmatic pressure (Pdi). The methodological quality of these included studies was very good, and the validity values were rated as sufficient. There was high-quality evidence to support the convergent validity between diaphragmatic excursion and FEV1 or FVC, [37] while all others were low.

AIS

Discriminative/known-groups validity

One included study reported a significant difference in the left and right side diaphragmatic excursion among participants with a thoracic curve, with an adequate COSMIN rating [44]. Another included study reported no significant group difference in the stiffness of intercostal muscles between participants with and without AIS [25], but its COSMIN rating was doubtful. The quality of evidence for both conditions was low.

COPD

Convergent and discriminative/known-groups validity

One included study [24] reported both discriminative/known-groups and convergent validity of diagrammatic stiffness measurement. Shear wave velocity in the COPD group was significantly higher than that of the healthy controls, and shear wave velocity was negatively correlated with FEV1 or FVC. Another included study [51] revealed a significant positive correlation between intercostal muscle thickness and FEV1. All these results were rated as sufficient. The methodological quality of these two studies on convergent validity was rated as doubtful or adequate, and the overall quality of evidence was very low. While the methodological quality and quality of evidence of the first study [24] on discriminative/known-groups validity was rated as very good and low, respectively.

Discussion

Our review found moderate-quality evidence to support sufficient within-day intra-rater reliability of B-mode USG in measuring right diaphragmatic thickness among people with LBP, sufficient between-day intra-rater reliability of M-mode USG in measuring right diaphragmatic excursion in non-hospitalized individuals. The quality of evidence for all other measurements in relevant included studies and separated populations was low or very low. High-quality evidence supported the positive correlation between diaphragmatic excursion and FEV1 or FVC in healthy individuals [37]. However, the quality of evidence for the validity between various USG measurement parameters and other comparators was low or very low.

There are several possible reasons for the observed low quality of evidence. According to the grading criteria, most of the included studies were downgraded by their small sample sizes and poor methodological quality. Because the included studies were heterogeneous in terms of the position of participants, breathing phases during measurements, the definition of operators' experiences, and the types of ICC model, no meta-analysis was conducted. Therefore, the sample size for each measurement parameter in each condition was very small. Additionally, most included studies were rated with doubtful methodological quality according to the latest version of the ClinROMs checklist [31]. Unlike the COSMIN PROMs checklist (box 6 for reliability assessment) [32], the ClinROMs checklist was developed for clinician‐reported outcome measures, which include readings from imaging modalities and ratings based on observations such as USG. Studies involving ClinROMs were more complicated because the involved patients, clinicians, and devices might affect the methodological quality. Therefore, the ClinROMs checklist adds items related to these factors. Most of our included studies lost scores on items 4 and 5 (related to professionals). Four included studies published in 2021 developed their study design based on the ClinROMs checklists. Therefore, they were rated as very good or adequate [24, 39, 52, 53]. Collectively, earlier research that followed the previous COSMIN checklist in designing their studies yielded low methodological quality.

As expected, the intra-rater reliability was higher than the inter-rater reliability, and the reliability of experienced operators was higher than novice operators. The relatively lower inter-rater reliability in the current review concurs with previous findings on critically ill patients [19]. Novice operators have low reliability in performing USG measurements of muscles because USG is operator dependent. Specifically, the placement of a probe at the target location (zone of apposition, subcostal, intercostal) and the selection of the best image on each measurement highly depends on the operator’s experience. Such measurements are even more challenging for dynamic diaphragm measurements.

Although no meta-analysis was conducted, the reliability of measuring right hemidiaphragm seems to be higher than that of the left side. Using any type of USG to investigate diaphragm needs adjacent structures to provide a good acoustic window. Liver provides a good acoustic window for the right hemidiaphragm investigation, whereas the measure on the left hemidiaphragm is more challenging for novice operators given the smaller spleen window and the interference of gas in the gastrointestinal tract [37, 54, 55].

The comparators in convergent validity studies included Pdi, FEV1, and FVC. Pdi is a golden standard for evaluating diaphragm function but it is invasive [19]. The strong positive correlation between Pdi and diaphragmatic stiffness [23] or strain rate [46] suggest that SWE and STI may noninvasively assess diaphragm functions. FEV1 and FVC are commonly used to quantify respiratory function of patients with COPD [56]. The sufficient correlations between FEV1 or FVC and respiratory muscle stiffness [24], thickness [51] and excursion [37] suggest that the SWE, B-mode and M-mode USG can be used to assess respiratory functions. Further studies should explore the measurement properties of other non-invasive measurements of respiratory muscle properties (e.g., magnetic resonance imaging).

The known-groups validity studies found that certain USG assessments of diaphragm parameters could be used to discriminate people with and without diseases [24, 25, 44]. Notably, the reported discriminative/known-groups validity in patients with AIS suggested that M-mode USG-measured diaphragmatic excursion might help differentiate the bilateral hemi-diaphragmatic function in patients with different severity of the thoracic curve [44]. However, the intercostal muscle stiffness cannot differentiate people with and without AIS [25], a study on patients with COPD suggests that SWE-measured diaphragmatic stiffness can differentiate people with and without COPD [24].

The evidence regarding SWE, STI, and TDI was low summarized because of the limited number of included studies. SWE generates shear waves that propagate through tissues in the transverse plane causing shear displacements, which can be tracked to calculate shear wave velocity or shear modulus [27]. Shear wave velocity is faster in stiffer tissues, but decreases significantly with the thickness in thin tissues, especially when the thickness is less than 1.5 cm [57, 58]. Therefore, shear wave velocity is affected by muscle mechanical properties and thickness in very thin tissues. Because both diaphragm and intercostal muscles are thin (0.13–0.76 cm) [59], the validity of using SWE to measure inspiratory muscle stiffness should be interpreted with caution [29]. Further, the limited penetration depth, high sensitivity to sensor pressure and angle, and the dependence of shear modulus on the probe orientation are the disadvantages of SWE [27, 60]. Future studies should take muscle thickness into consideration if SWE is used to measure respiratory muscle stiffness.

Both STI and TDI are strain rate imaging, which measure the differences in motion and velocity within tissues. They are commonly used in echocardiographic imaging to assess regional myocardial function [61, 62]. Speckles are small groups of tissue pixels with specific grayscale characteristics created by the interaction of ultrasound beams and tissues and can be used to calculate the tissue strain and strain rate [62]. STI technique identifies and tracks the same speckle throughout the movement cycle. While TDI measures the longitudinal strain and strain rate (one dimension, ultrasound beam should be parallel to the direction of tissue motion), STI is independent of the angle and beam directions, and allows the tracking in two dimensions [63]. Therefore, STI is better than TDI in investigating the motion of diaphragm which may better reflect diaphragmatic contractibility. More studies are warranted to use these two novel techniques to investigate respiratory muscles.

Limitations

The current review had several limitations. First, the included studies were heterogenous, which precluded meta-analysis. Second, the use of the updated and stricter ClinROMs checklist led to the downgrade of the quality of evidence, although it was essential. Third, no included studies evaluated the responsiveness of various USG measurements, which may limit its clinical usage.

Conclusions

This is the first systematic review on the evidence regarding the measurement properties of using various types of USG to evaluate respiratory muscle characteristics in non-hospitalized populations. Although separate included studies revealed sufficient reliability and validity of using these USG technologies to assess the morphometry, function, and mechanical properties of respiratory muscles in non-hospitalized individuals, the respective quality of evidence was low due to the limited number of relevant studies. More high-quality large-scale studies are warranted to establish the reliability and validity of using various types of USG assessments to measure different respiratory muscle characteristics in different populations.

Availability of data and materials

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

AIS:

Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis

B-mode:

Brightness-mode

ClinROMs:

Clinician‐Reported Outcome Measures

CI:

Confidence interval

COPD:

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

COSMIN:

The Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments

FEV1:

Forced expiratory volume in the first second

FVC:

Forced vital capacity

ICC:

Intra-class correlation coefficient

LBP:

Low back pain

M-mode:

Motion-mode

Pdi:

Transdiaphragmatic pressure

PROMs:

Patient‐Reported Outcome Measures

STI:

Speckle tracking imaging

SWE:

Shear wave elastography

TDI:

Tissue doppler imaging

USG:

Ultrasonography

References

  1. Bains, K.N.S., S. Kashyap, and S.L. Lappin, Anatomy, thorax, diaphragm, in StatPearls. 2021, StatPearls Publishing.

  2. Meilleur, K.G., M.M. Linton, J. Fontana, A. Rutkowski, J. Elliott, M. Barton, et al., Comparison of sitting and supine forced vital capacity in collagen VI-related dystrophy and laminin α2-related dystrophy. 2017(1099–0496 (Electronic)).

  3. Nason LK, Walker CM, McNeeley MF, Burivong W, Fligner CL, Godwin JD. Imaging of the diaphragm: anatomy and function. Radiographics. 2012;32(2):E51-70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Smith MD, Russell A, Hodges PW. The relationship between incontinence, breathing disorders, gastrointestinal symptoms, and back pain in women: a longitudinal cohort study. Clin J Pain. 2014;30(2):162–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Smith MD, Russell A, Hodges PW. Do incontinence, breathing difficulties, and gastrointestinal symptoms increase the risk of future back pain? J Pain. 2009;10(8):876–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kolar P, Sulc J, Kyncl M, Sanda J, Cakrt O, Andel R, et al. Postural function of the diaphragm in persons with and without chronic low back pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2012;42(4):352–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Janssens L, Brumagne S, McConnell AK, Raymaekers J, Goossens N, Gayan-Ramirez G, et al. The assessment of inspiratory muscle fatigue in healthy individuals: a systematic review. Respir Med. 2013;107(3):331–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Boushel R. Muscle metaboreflex control of the circulation during exercise. Acta Physiol (Oxf). 2010;199(4):367–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Tiller NB. Pulmonary and respiratory muscle function in response to marathon and ultra-marathon running: a review. Sports Med. 2019;49(7):1031–41.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. De Troyer A, Boriek AM. Mechanics of the respiratory muscles. Compr Physiol. 2011;1(3):1273–300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sieck GC, Ferreira LF, Reid MB, Mantilla CB. Mechanical properties of respiratory muscles. Compr Physiol. 2013;3(4):1553–67.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Shi ZH, Jonkman A, de Vries H, Jansen D, Ottenheijm C, Girbes A, et al. Expiratory muscle dysfunction in critically ill patients: towards improved understanding. Intensive Care Med. 2019;45(8):1061–71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Mercurio G, D’Arrigo S, Moroni R, Grieco DL, Menga LS, Romano A, et al. Diaphragm thickening fraction predicts noninvasive ventilation outcome: a preliminary physiological study. Crit Care. 2021;25(1):219.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Goligher, E.C., M.E. Laghi F Fau - Detsky, P. Detsky Me Fau - Farias, A. Farias P Fau - Murray, D. Murray A Fau - Brace, L.J. Brace D Fau - Brochard, et al., Measuring diaphragm thickness with ultrasound in mechanically ventilated patients: feasibility, reproducibility and validity. Reliability of bedside ultrasound of limb and diaphragm muscle thickness in critically ill children. 2015(1432–1238 (Electronic)).

  15. Umbrello M, Formenti P, Longhi D, Galimberti A, Piva I, Pezzi A, et al. Diaphragm ultrasound as indicator of respiratory effort in critically ill patients undergoing assisted mechanical ventilation: a pilot clinical study. Crit Care. 2015;19(1):161.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Dubé BP, Dres M, Mayaux J, Demiri S, Similowski T, Demoule A. Ultrasound evaluation of diaphragm function in mechanically ventilated patients: comparison to phrenic stimulation and prognostic implications. Thorax. 2017;72(9):811–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Demoule A, Dubé BP, Mayaux J, Demiri S, Similowski T, Dres M. Validation of ultrasound to assess diaphragm function in mechanically ventilated patients. Ann Intensive Care. 2017;7(1):196.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Nascimento TS, de Queiroz RS, Ramos ACC, Martinez BP, Da Silva ESCM, Gomes-Neto M. Ultrasound protocols to assess skeletal and diaphragmatic muscle in people who are critically ill: a systematic review. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2021;47(11):3041–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Zambon M, Greco M, Bocchino S, Cabrini L, Beccaria PF, Zangrillo A. Assessment of diaphragmatic dysfunction in the critically ill patient with ultrasound: a systematic review. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(1):29–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Formenti P, Umbrello M, Dres M, Chiumello D. Ultrasonographic assessment of parasternal intercostal muscles during mechanical ventilation. Ann Intensive Care. 2020;10(1):120.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Wallbridge, P., S. Parry, S. Das, C. Law, G. Hammerschlag, L. Irving, et al., Parasternal intercostal muscle ultrasound measurements correlate with disease severity in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A pilot study. European Respiratory Journal, 2018. 52.

  22. Dres M, Dubé B-P, Goligher E, Vorona S, Demiri S, Morawiec E, et al. Usefulness of parasternal intercostal muscle ultrasound during weaning from mechanical ventilation. Anesthesiology. 2020;132(5):1114–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bachasson D, Dres M, Niérat MC, Gennisson JL, Hogrel JY, Doorduin J, et al. Diaphragm shear modulus reflects transdiaphragmatic pressure during isovolumetric inspiratory efforts and ventilation against inspiratory loading. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2019;126(3):699–707.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Xu J-H, Wu Z-Z, Tao F-Y, Zhu S-T, Chen S-P, Cai C, et al. Ultrasound shear wave elastography for evaluation of diaphragm stiffness in patients with Stable COPD: a pilot trial. J Ultrasound Med. 2021;40(12):2655–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Pietton R, David M, Hisaund A, Langlais T, Skalli W, Vialle R, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of intercostal muscles in healthy children and adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a preliminary study. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2021;47(1):51–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Flattres A, Aarab Y, Nougaret S, Garnier F, Larcher R, Amalric M, et al. Real-time shear wave ultrasound elastography: a new tool for the evaluation of diaphragm and limb muscle stiffness in critically ill patients. Crit Care. 2020;24(1):34.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Taljanovic MS, Gimber LH, Becker GW, Latt LD, Klauser AS, Melville DM, et al. Shear-wave elastography: basic physics and musculoskeletal applications. Radiographics. 2017;37(3):855–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Gennisson JL, Deffieux T, Fink M, Tanter M. Ultrasound elastography: principles and techniques. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2013;94(5):487–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Jonkman AH, de Korte CL. Shear wave elastography of the diaphragm: good vibrations? Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2021;204(7):748–50.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Moher, D., A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, D.G. Altman, and P. Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339: b2535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Mokkink LB, Boers M, van der Vleuten CPM, Bouter LM, Alonso J, Patrick DL, et al. COSMIN Risk of Bias tool to assess the quality of studies on reliability or measurement error of outcome measurement instruments: a Delphi study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20(1):293.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Prinsen CAC, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, Alonso J, Patrick DL, de Vet HCW, et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1147–57.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Altman, D.G., Practical statistics for medical research. 1990: CRC press.

  34. Amerijckx C, Goossens N, Pijnenburg M, Musarra F, van Leeuwen DM, Schmitz M, et al. Influence of phase of respiratory cycle on ultrasound imaging of deep abdominal muscle thickness. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2020;46: 102105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Baldwin CE, Paratz JD, Bersten AD. Diaphragm and peripheral muscle thickness on ultrasound: intra-rater reliability and variability of a methodology using non-standard recumbent positions. Respirology  (Carlton, Vic). 2011;16(7):1136–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Blaney F, English CS, Sawyer T. Sonographic measurement of diaphragmatic displacement during tidal breathing manoeuvres - a reliability study. Aust J Physiother. 1998;44(1):41–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Boussuges A, Gole Y, Blanc P, Boussuges A, Gole Y, Blanc P. Diaphragmatic motion studied by m-mode ultrasonography: methods, reproducibility, and normal values. Chest. 2009;135(2):391–400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Brown C, Tseng SC, Mitchell K, Roddey T. Body position affects ultrasonographic measurement of diaphragm contractility. Cardiopulm Phys Ther J. 2018;29(4):166–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Cappellini I, Picciafuochi F, Bartolucci M, Matteini S, Virgili G, Adembri C. Evaluation of diaphragm thickening by diaphragm ultrasonography: a reproducibility and a repeatability study. J Ultrasound. 2021;24(4):411–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Harper CJ, Shahgholi L, Cieslak K, Hellyer NJ, Strommen JA, Boon AJ. Variability in diaphragm motion during normal breathing, assessed with B-mode ultrasound. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2013;43(12):927–31.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Marugán-Rubio D, Chicharro JL, Becerro-de-Bengoa-Vallejo R, Losa-Iglesias ME, Rodríguez-Sanz D, Vicente-Campos D, et al. Concurrent validity and reliability of manual versus specific device transcostal measurements for breathing diaphragm thickness by ultrasonography in lumbopelvic pain athletes. Sensors (Basel). 2021;21(13):4329.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Mohan V, Hashim UF, Md Dom S, Sitilerpisan P, Paungmali A. Paungmali, Reliability of diaphragmatic mobility assessment using a real time ultrasound among non-specific low back pain. Bangladesh J Med Sci. 2017;16(3):443–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Nassiri, K., M. Abedi, F.D. Manshadi, A.A. Baghban, and M.H. Meymeh, Comparison of the reliability of sonographic measurements of diaphragm thickness and mobility in individuals with and without pelvic girdle pain. Iranian Red Crescent Med J, 2019. 21(12).

  44. Noh DK, Koh JH, You JS. Inter- and intratester reliability values of ultrasound imaging measurements of diaphragm movement in the thoracic and thoracolumbar curves in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Physiother Theory Pract. 2016;32(2):139–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Noh DK, Lee JJ, You JH. Diaphragm breathing movement measurement using ultrasound and radiographic imaging: a concurrent validity. Bio-Med Mater Eng. 2014;24(1):947–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Oppersma E, Hatam N, Doorduin J, van der Hoeven JG, Marx G, Goetzenich A, et al. Functional assessment of the diaphragm by speckle tracking ultrasound during inspiratory loading. J Appl Physiol  (1985). 2017;123(5):1063–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Orde SR, Boon AJ, Firth DG, Villarraga HR, Sekiguchi H. Diaphragm assessment by two dimensional speckle tracking imaging in normal subjects. BMC Anesthesiol. 2016;16(1):43.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Scarlata S, Mancini D, Laudisio A, Raffaele AI. Reproducibility of diaphragmatic thickness measured by M-mode ultrasonography in healthy volunteers. Respir Physiol Neurobiol. 2019;260:58–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Scarlata S, Mancini D, Laudisio A, Benigni A, Antonelli Incalzi R. Reproducibility and clinical correlates of supine diaphragmatic motion measured by m-mode ultrasonography in healthy volunteers. Respiration. 2018;96(3):259–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Soilemezi E, Savvidou S, Sotiriou P, Smyrniotis D, Tsagourias M, Matamis D. Tissue doppler imaging of the diaphragm in healthy subjects and critically ill patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;202(7):1005–12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Wallbridge P, Parry SM, Das S, Law C, Hammerschlag G, Irving L, et al. Parasternal intercostal muscle ultrasound in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease correlates with spirometric severity. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):15274.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Ziaeifar, M., J. Sarrafzadeh, S. Noorizadeh Dehkordi, A.M. Arab, H. Haghighatkhah, and A. Zendehdel Jadehkenari, Diaphragm thickness, thickness change, and excursion in subjects with and without nonspecific low back pain using B-mode and M-mode ultrasonography. Physiother Theory Pract, 2021: p. 1–11.

  53. Marugán-Rubio D, Chicharro JL, Becerro-de-Bengoa-Vallejo R, Losa-Iglesias ME, Rodríguez-Sanz D, Vicente-Campos D, et al. Concurrent validity and reliability of manual versus specific device transcostal measurements for breathing diaphragm thickness by ultrasonography in lumbopelvic pain athletes. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland). 2021;21(13):4329.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Laghi, F.A., Jr., M. Saad, and H. Shaikh, Ultrasound and non-ultrasound imaging techniques in the assessment of diaphragmatic dysfunction. BMC Pulm Med, 2021. 21(1): p. 85.

  55. Toledo NS, Kodaira SK, Massarollo PC, Pereira OI, Dalmas JC, Cerri GG, et al. Left hemidiaphragmatic mobility: assessment with ultrasonographic measurement of the craniocaudal displacement of the splenic hilum and the inferior pole of the spleen. J Ultrasound Med. 2006;25(1):41–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Laveneziana P, Albuquerque A, Aliverti A, Babb T, Barreiro E, Dres M, et al. ERS statement on respiratory muscle testing at rest and during exercise. Eur Respir J. 2019;53(6):1801214.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Mo J, Xu H, Qiang B, Giambini H, Kinnick R, An KN, et al. Bias of shear wave elasticity measurements in thin layer samples and a simple correction strategy. Springerplus. 2016;5(1):1341.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Sadeghi S, Cortes DH. Measurement of the shear modulus in thin-layered tissues using numerical simulations and shear wave elastography. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2020;102: 103502.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Boon AJ, Harper CJ, Ghahfarokhi LS, Strommen JA, Watson JC, Sorenson EJ. Two-dimensional ultrasound imaging of the diaphragm: quantitative values in normal subjects. Muscle Nerve. 2013;47(6):884–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Taljanovic MS, Melville DM, Klauser AS, Latt LD, Arif-Tiwari H, Gao L, et al. Advances in lower extremity ultrasound. Curr Radiol Rep. 2015;3(6):19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Thavendiranathan P, Poulin F, Lim KD, Plana JC, Woo A, Marwick TH. Use of myocardial strain imaging by echocardiography for the early detection of cardiotoxicity in patients during and after cancer chemotherapy: a systematic review. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63(25 Pt A):2751–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Fabiani I, Pugliese NR, Santini V, Conte L, Di Bello V. Speckle-Tracking Imaging, Principles and Clinical Applications: A Review for Clinical Cardiologists, in Echocardiography in Heart Failure and Cardiac Electrophysiology. 2016.

  63. Dandel M, Hetzer R. Echocardiographic strain and strain rate imaging–clinical applications. Int J Cardiol. 2009;132(1):11–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China

    Emma FengMing Zhou, Siu Ngor Fu, Chen Huang, Xiu Ping Huang & Arnold Yu Lok Wong

Authors
  1. Emma FengMing Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Siu Ngor Fu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chen Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xiu Ping Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Arnold Yu Lok Wong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Concept/idea/research design: AYW, SF Acquisition of data: FZ, CH, XH. Analysis and interpretation of data: FZ, CH. Writing/review/editing of manuscript: FZ, AYW. Final approval of the manuscript: AYW, SF.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arnold Yu Lok Wong.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhou, E.F., Fu, S.N., Huang, C. et al. Reliability and validity of ultrasonography in evaluating the thickness, excursion, stiffness, and strain rate of respiratory muscles in non-hospitalized individuals: a systematic review. BMC Oral Health 23, 959 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03558-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03558-y

Keywords

BMC Oral Health

ISSN: 1472-6831

Contact us