ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021
Reliability of Repeated Trials Protocols for Body Composition Assessment by Air Displacement Plethysmography.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Learning Effects in Air Displacement Plethysmography.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Exposure to loneliness cues reduces prosocial behavior: Evidence from N400 and P300.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- A comparison of bioelectrical impedance analysis and air displacement plethysmography to assess body composition in children.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Air displacement plethysmography (ADP) is fast, accurate, and reliable. Nevertheless, in about 3% of the cases, standard ADP tests provide rogue results. To spot these outliers and improve precision, repeated trials protocols have been devised, but few works have addressed their reliability. This study was conducted to evaluate the test-retest reliabilities of two known protocols and a new one, proposed here. Ninety-two healthy adults (46 men and 46 women) completed six consecutive ADP tests. To evaluate the reliability of single measurements, we used the results of the first two tests; for multiple measures protocols, we computed the test result from trials 1-3 and the retest result from trials 4-6. Bland-Altman analysis revealed that the bias and the width of the 95% interval of agreement were smaller for multiple trials than for single ones. For percent body fat (%BF)/fat-free mass, the technical error of measurement was 1% BF/0.68 kg for single trials and 0.62% BF/0.46 kg for the new protocol of multiple trials, which proved to be the most reliable. The minimal detectable change (MDC) was 2.77% BF/1.87 kg for single trials and 1.72% BF/1.26 kg for the new protocol.
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.