ArticleEuropean journal of clinical nutrition2019
Relative accuracy of body adiposity index and relative fat mass in participants with and without down syndrome.
Article in European journal of clinical nutrition, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Relative fat mass assessment estimates changes in adiposity among female older adults with obesity after a 12-month exercise and diet intervention.Annals of medicine · 2022Trial
- Are Bioimpedance Parameters Altered in Adults With Down Syndrome? A Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR · 2026Article
- Higher relative fat mass was associated with a higher prevalence of gallstones in US adults.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- A descriptive analysis of sarcopenia markers in young adults with down syndrome.Experimental gerontology · 2025Article
- Association between relative fat mass and kidney stones in American adults.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Evaluation of Skinfold Techniques in People with Down Syndrome: Development of a New Equation.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Performance of Body Adiposity Index and Relative Fat Mass in Predicting Bioelectric Impedance Analysis-Derived Body Fat Percentage: A Cross-Sectional Study among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in the Ho Municipality, Ghana.BioMed research international · 2023Article
- Development and Validation of Waist Girth-Based Equations to Evaluate Body Composition in Colombian Adults: Rationale and STROBE-Nut-Based Protocol of the F20 Project.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Observational
- Is body mass index (BMI) or body adiposity index (BAI) a better indicator to estimate body fat and selected cardiometabolic risk factors in adults with intellectual disabilities?BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2021Article
- Relative fat mass is a better predictor of dyslipidemia and metabolic syndrome than body mass index.Cardiovascular endocrinology & metabolism · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesThe body adiposity index (BAI) and relative fat mass (RFM) are anthropometric measures developed to estimate body composition (%Fat). There is limited research validating these methods of body composition assessment in adults with Down syndrome (DS). The aim of this study was to examine the accuracy of the BAI and RFM in a sample of adults with- and without DS. We hypothesize that the RFM would provide greater accuracy than the BAI when estimating %Fat. SUBJECTS/
methodsBAI and RFM were assessed in a sample of adults (n = 235, 50.2% female, 20.0% DS, 23.1 ± 6.7 years). %Fat assessed using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry served as the criterion method of body composition. Between-group differences were assessed using a two-way (SEX × DS) analysis of variance.
resultsBAI overestimated %Fat in men without DS, but underestimated %Fat in women without DS (4.1 ± 4.5%Fat vs. -3.5 ± 4.6%Fat, respectively, p < 0.001). BAI overestimated %Fat in men and women with DS (4.7 ± 7.8%Fat vs. 0.8 ± 7.5%Fat, respectively, p = 0.090). RFM slightly overestimated %Fat in male and female participants without DS, and did not vary by sex (0.9 ± 4.0%Fat vs. 0.2 ± 4.2%Fat, respectively, p = 0.248). RFM underestimated %Fat in men and women with DS, with no differences observed between sexes (-2.1 ± 5.3%Fat vs. -2.2 ± 6.9%Fat, respectively, p = 0.953).
conclusionsThe BAI and RFM can be used to estimate body composition in individuals with- and without DS, however, the RFM yields greater accuracy and is recommended when more advanced methods of body composition assessment are unavailable or create unwanted participant burden.
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.