Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35067750›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of applied physiology2022

Bioelectrical impedance analysis versus reference methods in the assessment of body composition in athletes.

Francesco Campa, Luis Alberto Gobbo, Silvia Stagi, Leticia Trindade Cyrino, Stefania Toselli, Elisabetta Marini, Giuseppe Coratella

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of applied physiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors.

Francesco CampaDepartment for Life Quality Studies, Università degli Studi di Bologna, Rimini, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3028-7802
Luis Alberto GobboDepartment of Physical Education, São Paulo State University, Presidente Prudente, SP, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4700-0000
Silvia StagiDepartment of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Cagliari, Cittadella Universitaria, Monserrato, Cagliari, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6469-4334
Leticia Trindade CyrinoDepartment of Physical Education, São Paulo State University, Presidente Prudente, SP, Brazil.
Stefania ToselliDepartment of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences, Università degli Studi di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5478-2499
Elisabetta MariniDepartment of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Cagliari, Cittadella Universitaria, Monserrato, Cagliari, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8779-8745
Giuseppe CoratellaDepartment of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, via Giuseppe Colombo 71, 20133, Milano, Italy. Giuseppe.coratella@unimi.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7523-9102

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The present systematic review aimed to compare the accuracy of Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis (BIA) and Bioelectrical Impedance Vector Analysis (BIVA) vs. reference methods for the assessment of body composition in athletes. Studies were identified based on a systematic search of internationally electronic databases (PubMed and Scopus) and hand searching of the reference lists of the included studies. In total, 42 studies published between 1988 and 2021 were included. The methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-sectional Studies as recommended by the National Institute of Health. Twenty-three studies had an overall good rating in terms of quality, while 13 were rated as fair and 6 as poor, resulting in a low to moderate risk of bias. Fat mass was inconsistently determined using BIA vs. the reference methods, regardless of the BIA-technology. When using the foot to hand technology with predictive equations for athletes, a good agreement between BIA and the reference methods was observed for fat-free mass, total body, intra and extra cellular water. However, an underestimation in fat-free mass and body fluids was found when using generalized predictive equations. Classic and Specific BIVA represented a valid approach for assessing body fluids (Classic BIVA) and percentage of fat mass (Specific BIVA). The present systematic review suggests that BIA and BIVA can be used for assessing body composition in athletes, provided that foot-to-hand technology, predictive equations, and BIVA references for athletes are used.

Indexed as

AthletesElectric ImpedanceBody CompositionHumansPredictive Value of TestsReference ValuesBioimpedance vector analysisClassic BIVANutritionPhase angleResistance trainingSpecific BIVATolerance ellipses

Identifiers

PMID35067750

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.