Key result
Ultrasound imaging for assessing biological maturity in adolescents showed high to excellent reliability, with 70% of assessments evaluated as applicable, though none are yet a gold standard.
Why the study?
Radiography is the gold standard for estimating biological maturity, but ultrasound imaging may be advantageous, though its validity and reliability remain under discussion.
Does ultrasound imaging accurately and reliably assess biological maturity in adolescents?
Does ultrasound imaging accurately and reliably assess biological maturity in adolescents?
Ultrasound imaging shows high reliability and potential applicability for assessing biological maturity in youth sports, though it is not yet a gold standard.
Ultrasound may aid non-invasive maturity assessment in youth sports; leaves open gold-standard validation in prospective studies.
Bone maturity is an indicator for estimating the biological maturity of an individual. During adolescence, individuals show heterogeneous growth rates, and thus, differences in biological maturity should be considered in talent identification and development. Radiography of the left hand and wrist is considered the gold standard of biological maturity estimation. The use of ultrasound imaging (US) may be advantageous; however, its validity and reliability are under discussion. The aims of this scoping review are (1) to summarize the different methods for estimating biological maturity by US imaging in adolescents, (2) to obtain an overview of the level of validity and reliability of the methods, and (3) to point out the practicability and usefulness of ultrasound imaging in the field of youth sports. The search included articles published up to November 2022. The inclusion criteria stipulated that participants had to fall within the age range of 8 to 23 years and be free of bone disease and fractures in the region of interest. Nine body regions were investigated, while the hand and wrist were most commonly analyzed. US assessment methods were usually based on the estimation of a bone maturity stage, rather than a decimal bone age. Furthermore, 70% of the assessments were evaluated as applicable, 10% expressed restraint about implementation, and 20% were evaluated as not applicable. When tested, inter- and intra-rater reliability was high to excellent. Despite the absence of ionization, low costs, fast assessment, and accessibility, none of the US assessments could be referred to as a gold standard. If further development succeeds, its application has the potential to incorporate biological age into selection processes. This would allow for more equal opportunities in talent selection and thus make talent development fairer and more efficient.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rüeger et al. (2022) conducted a review in Biological maturity. Ultrasound imaging vs. Radiography was evaluated on Applicability of ultrasound imaging for estimating biological maturity. Ultrasound imaging for assessing biological maturity in adolescents showed high to excellent reliability, with 70% of assessments evaluated as applicable, though none are yet a gold standard.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: