Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Assessing reliability and validity of different stiffness measurement tools on a multi-layered phantom tissue model
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Assessing reliability and validity of different stiffness measurement tools on a multi-layered phantom tissue model
Do you wish to request the book?
Assessing reliability and validity of different stiffness measurement tools on a multi-layered phantom tissue model
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Assessing reliability and validity of different stiffness measurement tools on a multi-layered phantom tissue model
2023
Overview
Changes in the mechanical properties (i.e., stiffness) of soft tissues have been linked to musculoskeletal disorders, pain conditions, and cancer biology, leading to a rising demand for diagnostic methods. Despite the general availability of different stiffness measurement tools, it is unclear as to which are best suited for different tissue types and the related measurement depths. The study aimed to compare different stiffness measurement tools’ (SMT) reliability on a multi-layered phantom tissue model (MPTM). A polyurethane MPTM simulated the four layers of the thoracolumbar region: cutis (CUT), subcutaneous connective tissue (SCT), fascia profunda (FPR), and erector spinae (ERS), with varying stiffness parameters. Evaluated stiffness measurement tools included Shore Durometer, Semi-Electronic Tissue Compliance Meter (STCM), IndentoPRO, MyotonPRO, and ultrasound imaging. Measurements were made by two independent, blinded examiners. Shore Durometer, STCM, IndentoPRO, and MyotonPRO reliably detected stiffness changes in three of the four MPTM layers, but not in the thin (1 mm thick) layer simulating FPR. With ultrasound imaging, only stiffness changes in layers thicker than 3 mm could be measured reliably. Significant correlations ranging from 0.70 to 0.98 (all
p
< 0.01) were found. The interrater reliability ranged from good to excellent (ICC(2,2) = 0.75–0.98). The results are encouraging for researchers and clinical practitioners as the investigated stiffness measurement tools are easy-to-use and comparatively affordable.
