The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Direct and indirect methods for the quantification of leg volume: comparison between water displacement volumetry, the disk model method and the frustum sign model method, using the correlation coefficient and the limits of agreement
Open accessAbstract
Volume changes can be measured either directly by water-displacement volumetry or by various indirect methods in which calculation of the volume is based on circumference measurements. The aim of the present study was to determine the most appropriate indirect method for lower leg volume calculation using water displacement volumetry as a 'golden standard'. For 20 male volunteers, age range: 20-35 years, the volume of both lower legs was determined directly by water-displacement volumetry, and indirectly by the frustum sign model method and the disc model method. Calculation of the correlation coefficient and the limits of agreement showed that water-displacement volumetry and the disc model method are interchangeable (r = +0.99, mean +/- 2s = -45 +/- 78 ml), whereas this does not hold for the frustum sign model (r = +0.93, mean +/- 2s = 521 +/- 238 ml). In the clinical situation volume measurement can be valuable for monitoring of the severity of oedema or haematoma occurrence after surgery or severe trauma. This non-invasive diagnostic aid may be a valuable adjuvant means of diagnosis for several volume dependent disorders of the extremities.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965
Cited by
Reliability and Validity of Arm Volume Measurements for Assessment of Lymphedema
Taylor, R., Jayasinghe, U. W., Koelmeyer, L., Ung, O., & Boyages, J. (2006) · Physical Therapy · doi:10.1093/ptj/86.2.205 · Cited by 334
Sander, A. P., Hajer, N. M., Hemenway, K., & Miller, A. C. (2002) · Physical Therapy · doi:10.1093/ptj/82.12.1201 · Cited by 317
Resistance exercise and secondary lymphedema in breast cancer survivors—a systematic review
Keilani, M., Hasenoehrl, T., Neubauer, M., & Crevenna, R. (2016) · Supportive Care in Cancer · doi:10.1007/s00520-015-3068-z · Cited by 93
Metadata
- Authors
- Kaulesar Sukul, D. M. K. S., den Hoed, P. T., Johannes, E. J., van Dolder, R., & Benda, E.
- Venue
- Journal of Biomedical Engineering
- Publisher
- IOP Publishing
- Published
- 1993-11-01
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 477-480
- ISSN
- 0141-5425 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2101395499
- Cited by
- 225
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 0.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Direct and indirect methods for the quantification of leg volume: comparison between water displacement volumetry, the disk model method and the frustum sign model method, using the correlation coefficient and the limits of agreement. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/0141-5425(93)90062-4
- The paper
- Kaulesar Sukul, D. M. K. S., den Hoed, P. T., Johannes, E. J., van Dolder, R., & Benda, E. (1993). Direct and indirect methods for the quantification of leg volume: comparison between water displacement volumetry, the disk model method and the frustum sign model method, using the correlation coefficient and the limits of agreement. Journal of Biomedical Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1016/0141-5425(93)90062-4
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.