Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31685968›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical nutrition2020

Digital anthropometry via three-dimensional optical scanning: evaluation of four commercially available systems.

Grant M Tinsley, M Lane Moore, Jacob R Dellinger, Brian T Adamson, Marqui L Benavides

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of clinical nutrition, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Comparison of Body Scanner and Manual Anthropometric Measurements of Body Shape: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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.

Grant M TinsleyEnergy Balance & Body Composition Laboratory, Department of Kinesiology & Sport Management, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA. grant.tinsley@ttu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0230-6586
M Lane MooreEnergy Balance & Body Composition Laboratory, Department of Kinesiology & Sport Management, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA.
Jacob R DellingerEnergy Balance & Body Composition Laboratory, Department of Kinesiology & Sport Management, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA.
Brian T AdamsonEnergy Balance & Body Composition Laboratory, Department of Kinesiology & Sport Management, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA.
Marqui L BenavidesEnergy Balance & Body Composition Laboratory, Department of Kinesiology & Sport Management, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA.

Funding

Texas Tech University (Texas Tech) N/A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDigital anthropometry is increasingly accessible due to commercial availability of three-dimensional optical scanners (3DO).

methodsOne hundred and seventy-nine participants were assessed by four 3DO systems (FIT3D®, Size Stream®, Styku®, and Naked Labs®) in duplicate, air displacement plethysmography (ADP), and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Test-retest precision was evaluated, and validity of total and regional volumes was established.

resultsAll scanners produced precise estimates, with root mean square coefficient of variation (RMS-%CV) of 1.1-1.3% when averaged across circumferences and 1.9-2.3% when averaged across volumes. Precision for circumferences generally decreased in the order of: hip, waist and thigh, chest, neck, and arms. Precision for volumes generally decreased in the order of: total body volume (BV), torso, legs, and arms. Total BV was significantly underestimated by Styku® (constant error [CE]: -10.1 L; root mean square error [RMSE]: 10.5 L) and overestimated by Size Stream® (CE: 8.0 L; RMSE: 8.3 L). Total BV did not differ between ADP and FIT3D® (CE: -3.9 L; RMSE: 4.2 L) or DXA BV equations (CE: 0-1.4 L; RMSE: 0.7-1.5 L). Torso volume was overestimated and leg and arm volumes were underestimated by all 3DO. No total or regional 3DO volume estimates exhibited equivalence with reference methods using 5% equivalence regions, and proportional bias of varying magnitudes was observed.

conclusionsAll 3DO produced precise anthropometric estimates, although variability in specific precision estimates was observed. 3DO BV estimates did not exhibit equivalence with reference methods. Conversely, DXA-derived total BV exhibited superior validity and equivalence with ADP.

Indexed as

Body CompositionPlethysmographyAbsorptiometry, PhotonAdipose TissueAnthropometryHumansReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID31685968

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.