MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390410504 · doi:10.1111/cpf.12870

Is musculoskeletal pain associated with increased muscle stiffness? Evidence map and critical appraisal of muscle measurements using shear wave elastography

2023· review· en· W4390410504 on OpenAlexaff
Andreas Haueise, Guillaume Le Sant, Angelika Eisele‐Metzger, Angela V. Dieterich

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Physiology and Functional Imaging · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound Imaging and Elastography
Canadian institutionsCochrane
FundersMinisterium für Wissenschaft, Forschung und Kunst Baden-Württemberg
KeywordsMedicineMuscle stiffnessAsymptomaticCritical appraisalStiffnessPhysical medicine and rehabilitationElastographyPopulationPhysical therapyCINAHLUltrasoundSurgeryRadiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Approximately 21% of the world's population suffers from musculoskeletal conditions, often associated with sensations of stiff muscles. Targeted therapy requires knowing whether typically involved muscles are objectively stiffer compared to asymptomatic individuals. Muscle stiffness is quantified using ultrasound shear wave elastography (SWE). Publications on SWE-based comparisons of muscle stiffness between individuals with and without musculoskeletal pain are increasing rapidly. This work reviewed and mapped the existing evidence regarding objectively measured muscle stiffness in musculoskeletal pain conditions and surveyed current methods of applying SWE to measure muscle stiffness. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed and CINAHL using the keywords "muscle stiffness", "shear wave elastography", "pain", "asymptomatic controls" and synonyms. The search was supplemented by a hand search using Google Scholar. Included articles were critically appraised with the AXIS tool, supplemented by items related to SWE methods. Results were visually mapped and narratively described. RESULTS: Thirty of 137 identified articles were included. High-quality evidence was missing. The results comprise studies reporting lower stiffness in symptomatic participants, no differences between groups and higher stiffness in symptomatic individuals. Results differed between pain conditions and muscles, and also between studies that examined the same muscle(s) and pathology. The methods of the application of SWE were inconsistent and the reporting was often incomplete. CONCLUSIONS: Existing evidence regarding the objective stiffness of muscles in musculoskeletal pain conditions is conflicting. Methodological differences may explain most of the inconsistencies between findings. Methodological standards for SWE measurements of muscles are urgently required.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.066
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.293
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.347

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0660.293
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.010
Bibliometrics0.0360.019
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.007
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.168
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Physiology and Functional ImagingSame topicUltrasound Imaging and ElastographyFrench-language works237,207