ArticlePorto biomedical journal
Ability of 2 estimation methods of body fat percentage in identifying unfavorable levels of cardiometabolic biomarkers in adolescents: Results from the LabMed study.
Article in Porto biomedical journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundTo assess and compare the ability of body fat percentage (BF%) estimated by 2 methods, bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) and by the Slaughter et al equations for triceps and subscapular skinfold thickness (SKF), in identifying unfavorable levels of several biomarkers of cardiometabolic risk.
methodsCross-sectional school-based study with 529 apparently healthy adolescents (267 girls), aged 14.3 ± 1.7 years.
resultsBF% estimated by both methods always showed higher areas under the curve (AUC) for each biomarker in girls than in boys (with the exception of BIA for leptin). BF% estimated by BIA and by SKF presented a discriminatory ability in identifying unfavorable levels in all biomarkers of cardiometabolic risk in girls; however, BF% estimated by BIA displayed the highest AUC (except for C-reactive protein). In boys, BF% estimated by SKF presented higher AUC for C-reactive protein, fibrinogen and erythrocyte sedimentation rate; and BF% estimated by BIA for complement C3 and leptin. Positive and significant associations between BIA and SKF with all biomarkers (
conclusionsOverall, diagnostic performance was more accurate in girls. BF% estimated by BIA presented a slightly better overall discriminatory ability for each biomarker than BF% estimated by SKF in girls, while in boys no method clearly prevailed over the other.
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.