Description:
<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Introduction/Aims</jats:title><jats:p>Orofacial muscle ultrasound images can be evaluated quantitatively or using a visual grading system. Quantitative muscle ultrasound (QMUS) is currently the most sensitive technique to detect pathology, but can be time‐consuming. The aim of this study was to investigate the validity and reliability of two visual grading systems (the original Heckmatt scale or a modified 3‐point version) for the optimal grading of orofacial muscle images.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>A retrospective, comparative, reliability and validity study was performed. Ultrasound images of the digastric, geniohyoid, masseter, temporalis muscles, and intrinsic muscles of the tongue of healthy participants and of patients (suspected of) having a neuromuscular disease were included. QMUS was used as the “gold standard.” Two expert raters and one inexperienced rater rated all ultrasound images using both visual grading systems.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>A total of 511 ultrasound images were included. Criterion validity showed Spearman rho correlation coefficients of >0.59. Construct validity analysis showed strong to very strong associations between the visual grading systems and mastication and/or swallowing. Inter‐ and intrarater reliability of the original Heckmatt scale and the modified scale were good and comparable. Rater experience had a beneficial effect on the interrater reliability of both scales.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Discussion</jats:title><jats:p>Both the original Heckmatt and the modified Heckmatt scale are valid and reliable tools for the visual grading of orofacial ultrasound images. The modified Heckmatt scale, with only three grades and including an “uncertain” category, is considered easier to use in clinical practice.</jats:p></jats:sec>