Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28158304›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Validation of two portable bioelectrical impedance analyses for the assessment of body composition in school age children.

Li-Wen Lee, Yu-San Liao, Hsueh-Kuan Lu, Pei-Lin Hsiao, Yu-Yawn Chen, Ching-Chi Chi, Kuen-Chang Hsieh

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

43 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Development of muscle mass and body fat reference curves for white male UK firefighters.International archives of occupational and environmental health · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

7 authors.

Li-Wen LeeDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chiayi, Taiwan.
Yu-San LiaoDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chiayi, Taiwan.
Hsueh-Kuan LuSport Science Research Center, National Taiwan University of Sport, Taichung, Taiwan.
Pei-Lin HsiaoDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chiayi, Taiwan.
Yu-Yawn ChenDepartment of Physical Education, National Taiwan University of Sport, Taichung, Taiwan.
Ching-Chi ChiDepartment of Dermatology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou, Taiwan.
Kuen-Chang HsiehOffice of Physical Education and Sport, National Chung Hsing University, Taichung, Taiwan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) is a convenient and child-friendly method for longitudinal analysis of changes in body composition. However, most validation studies of BIA have been performed on adult Caucasians. The present cross-sectional study investigated the validity of two portable BIA devices, the Inbody 230 (BIA8MF) and the Tanita BC-418 (BIA8SF), in healthy Taiwanese children.

methodsChildren aged 7-12 years (72 boys and 78 girls) were recruited. Body composition was measured by the BIA8SF and the BIA8MF. Dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) was used as the reference method.

resultsThere were strong linear correlations in body composition measurements between the BIA8SF and DXA and between the BIA8MF and DXA. Both BIAs underestimated fat mass (FM) and percentage body fat (%BF) relative to DXA in both genders The degree of agreement in lean body mass (LBM), FM, and %BF estimates was higher between BIA8MF and DXA than between BIA8SF and DXA. The Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (ρc) for LBM8MF met the criteria of substantial to perfect agreement whereas the ρc for FM8MF met the criteria of fair to substantial agreement. Bland-Altman analysis showed a clinically acceptable agreement between LBM measures by BIA8MF and DXA. The limit of agreement in %BF estimation by BIA and DXA were wide and the errors were clinically important. For the estimation of ALM, BIA8SF and BIA8MF both provided poor accuracy.

conclusionsFor all children, LBM measures were precise and accurate using the BIA8MF whereas clinically significant errors occurred in FM and %BF estimates. Both BIAs underestimated FM and %BF in children. Thus, the body composition results obtained using the inbuilt equations of the BIA8SF and BIA8MF should be interpreted with caution, and high quality validation studies for specific subgroups of children are required prior to field research.

Indexed as

Body CompositionElectric ImpedanceAbsorptiometry, PhotonChildCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID28158304
PMCPMC5291432

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.