Evidence mapPaperPMID 39443352Full record

ReviewAnnals of intensive care2024

Methodologies and clinical applications of lower limb muscle ultrasound in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Roberto Venco, Alessandro Artale, Paolo Formenti, Cristian Deana, Giovanni Mistraletti, Michele Umbrello

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of intensive care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Roberto Venco *Dipartimento di fisiopatologia medico-chirurgica e dei Trapianti, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milano, Italy.
Alessandro Artale *Dipartimento di fisiopatologia medico-chirurgica e dei Trapianti, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milano, Italy.
Paolo FormentiSC Anestesia, Rianimazione e Terapia Intensiva, Ospedale E. Bassini, ASST Nord Milano, Cinisello Balsamo, Italy.
Cristian DeanaDepartment of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Health Integrated Agency of Friuli Centrale, Udine, Italy.
Giovanni MistralettiDipartimento di fisiopatologia medico-chirurgica e dei Trapianti, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milano, Italy.
Michele UmbrelloSC Rianimazione e Anestesia, Ospedale Civile di Legnano, ASST Ovest Milanese, Via Giovanni Paolo II, 20025, Legnano, MI, Italy. michele.umbrello@fastwebnet.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4356-3543

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReduced muscle mass upon admission and development of muscle wasting are frequent in critically ill patients, and linked to unfavorable outcomes. Muscle ultrasound is a promising instrument for evaluating muscle mass. We summarized the findings of lower limb muscle ultrasound values and investigated how the muscle ultrasound parameters of the examination or the patient characteristics influence the results.

methodsSystematic review and meta-analysis of studies of lower limb ultrasound critically ill adults. PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, PEDro and Web of Science were searched. PRISMA guidelines were followed, and studies evaluated with the appropriate NIH quality assessment tool. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the values at admission, short and long follow-up during ICU stay, and the association between baseline values and patient characteristics or ultrasound parameters was investigated with a meta-regression.

resultsSixty-six studies (3839 patients) were included. The main muscles investigated were rectus femoris cross-sectional area (RF-CSA, n = 33/66), quadriceps muscle layer thickness (n = 32/66), and rectus femoris thickness (n = 19/66). Significant differences were found in the anatomical landmark and ultrasound settings. At ICU admission, RF-CSA ranged from 1.1 [0.73-1.47] to 6.36 [5.45-7.27] cm

conclusionsMeasurements of muscle mass using ultrasound varied with reference to patient characteristics, patient position, anatomical landmarks used for measurement, and the level of compression applied by the probe; this constrains the external validity of the results and highlights the need for standardization. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023420376.

Indexed as

Critically illLean body massMeta-analysisMuscle ultrasoundMuscle wastingSystematic reviewUltrasound

Identifiers

PMID39443352
PMCPMC11499498

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.