Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27026424›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of clinical nutrition2016

Body composition in overweight and obese women postpartum: bioimpedance methods validated by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry and doubly labeled water.

L Ellegård, F Bertz, A Winkvist, I Bosaeus, H K Brekke

Open access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialValidation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in European journal of clinical nutrition, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

L EllegårdDepartment of Internal Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
F BertzDepartment of Internal Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
A WinkvistDepartment of Internal Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
I BosaeusDepartment of Internal Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
H K BrekkeDepartment of Internal Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
University of Gothenburg · SEUniversity of Oslo · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

objectivesObesity, pregnancy and lactation all affect body composition. Simple methods to estimate body composition are useful in clinical practice and to evaluate interventions. In overweight and obese lactating women, such methods are not fully validated. The objective of this study was to validate the accuracy and precision of bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS) by Xitron 4200 and 8-electrode multifrequency impedance (multifrequency bioimpedance analysis, MFBIA) by Tanita MC180MA with the reference methods dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and doubly labeled water (DLW) for the assessment of body composition in 70 overweight and obese women postpartum. SUBJECTS/

methodsThe LEVA-study (Lifestyle for Effective Weight loss during lactation) consisted of an intervention and follow-up with three assessments at 3, 6 and 15 months postpartum, which made possible the validation of both accuracy and precision. Mean differences between methods were tested by a paired t-test and Bland-Altman plots for systematic bias.

resultsAt baseline, BIS and MFBIA underestimated fat mass (FM) by 2.6±2.8 and 8.0±4.2 kg compared with DXA (P<0.001) but without systematic bias. BIS and MFBIA overestimated total body water (TBW) by 2.4±2.2 and 4.4±3.2 kg (P<0.001) compared with DLW, with slight systematic bias by BIS. BIS correctly estimated muscle mass without systematic bias (P>0.05). BIS overestimated changes in TBW (P=0.01) without systematic bias, whereas MFBIA varied greatly and with systematic bias.

conclusionsBIS underestimates mean FM compared with DXA but can detect mean changes in body composition, although with large limits of agreement. BIS both accurately and precisely estimates muscle mass in overweight and obese women postpartum. MFBIA underestimates FM and overestimates TBW by proprietary equations compared with DXA and DLW.

Indexed as

Body CompositionAbsorptiometry, PhotonAdultDeuterium OxideElectric ImpedanceFemaleHumansObesityOverweightPredictive Value of TestsPregnancyPuerperal DisordersDeuterium Oxide

Identifiers

PMID27026424
OpenAlexW2330099604

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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 OpenQuestion graph.