ArticlePhysiological reports2019
Muscle assessment using multi-frequency bioimpedance in a healthy Danish population aged 20-69 years: a powerful non-invasive tool in sports and in the clinic.
Article in Physiological reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reliability of bioimpedance spectroscopy in the upper trapezius muscle.Journal of electromyography and kinesiology : official journal of the International Society of Electrophysiological Kinesiology · 2026Article
- Non-invasive methods to assess muscle function in dogs: A scoping review.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2023Article
- Probing cellular health at the muscle level-Multi-frequency bioimpedance in Parkinson's disease.Physiological reports · 2022Article
- Multi-frequency bioimpedance: a non-invasive tool for muscle-health assessment of adults with cerebral palsy.Journal of muscle research and cell motility · 2020Article
- Muscle assessment using multi-frequency bioimpedance in a healthy Danish population aged 20-69 years: a powerful non-invasive tool in sports and in the clinic.Physiological reports · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The condition of active muscles determines an individual's ability to carry out daily activities and has implications for an athlete's performance. Multi-frequency bioimpedance (mfBIA) is a non-invasive, well-known, validated, and much used method to assess muscle condition. However, it is rarely used to its full potential. Our aim was to apply mfBIA fully in the assessment of an adult healthy population, to compare muscle condition in different functional rested muscle groups, with age, and between men and women, and establish a control data set. Fifty healthy subjects (25 men/25 women) aged 20-69 years, participated. mfBIA measurements at a frequency range of 4-1000 kHz were taken from muscles of the lower and the upper extremities, the upper back, and the hand. Data were analyzed using ImpediMed software, giving Impedance, Resistance, Reactance, Phase Angle, Center Frequency, external and internal Resistance, and Membrane Capacitance. Differences between means were tested for statistical significance. A P value >0.05 was considered nonsignificant. While no difference in the mfBIA parameters was seen with age, a highly significant gender difference was seen. At rest, women's muscles cf men's showed a significantly higher center frequency and intra- and extra-cellular resistance, while the membrane capacitance was lower. A set of values for mfBIA parameters for healthy adult individuals are given for some of the main muscles which are frequently part of muscle assessment. The documented gender difference in muscle condition at rest has important implications in work situations, during physical rehabilitation and when training for competitive sports.
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.