ArticleInternational journal of exercise science
Evaluation of Hand-to-Hand Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis for Estimating Percent Body Fat in Young Adults.
Article in International journal of exercise science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Body fat assessment in youth with overweight or obesity by an automated bioelectrical impedance analysis device, in comparison with the dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry: a cross sectional study.BMC endocrine disorders · 2022Article
- Validity of Arm-to-Arm BIA Devices Compared to DXA for Estimating % Fat in College Men and Women.International journal of exercise scienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purposes were to (a) to examine the validity and precision of a hand-to-hand bioelectrical impedance analyzer (HBIA) and (b) to determine the effect of an acute sub-maximal aerobic exercise bout on HBIA percent body fat (%BF) measures. Forty-one young adults (21 women; 20 men) visited the laboratory for body composition assessment on two separate occasions. During the control session, %BF was assessed by HBIA twice, before and immediately after 30 min of rest, and once by air-displacement plethysmography (ADP), using the BOD POD, which was considered the criterion method for comparison. During the exercise session, HBIA %BF measurements were determined prior-to and immediately after 30 minutes of moderate-intensity treadmill exercise. HBIA significantly underestimated %BF in the total sample (mean difference (MD) = 1.4 ± 4.3%) and, when examined by gender, in the women (MD = 2.4 ± 4.1%). The standard errors of estimate (range 4.1-4.3%) also exceeded the recommended range for accuracy (<3.5%). Following exercise, there was minimal, but statistically significant reduction in HBIA-measured %BF pre- to post-exercise for the total sample (19.6 ± 6.0 vs. 19.3 ± 6.0%; p = 0.011). HBIA underestimated %BF when compared to ADP and the individual prediction error exceeded current recommendations when assessing young adults. In addition, performing sub-maximal aerobic exercise prior to the assessment decreased the %BF estimate. When one factors the exercise-induced alterations with the currently observed tendency for HBIA to underestimate %BF, it is apparent that exercise may further reduce the accuracy of this method.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.