ArticleScientific reports2022
Cross-calibration of two dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry devices for the measurement of body composition in young children.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of air displacement plethysmography, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, and bioimpedance in 6-week-old and 6-month-old infants.Pediatric research · 2026Article
- Overview of research and practice progress in body composition measurement techniques.Frontiers in medical technology · 2026Review
- Prediction of fat-free mass in young children using bioelectrical impedance spectroscopy.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2024Article
- The usefulness of total body protein mass models for adolescent athletes.Frontiers in nutrition · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to cross-calibrate body composition measures from the GE Lunar Prodigy and GE Lunar iDXA in a cohort of young children. 28 children (mean age 3.4 years) were measured on the iDXA followed by the Prodigy. Prodigy scans were subsequently reanalysed using enCORE v17 enhanced analysis ("Prodigy enhanced"). Body composition parameters were compared across three evaluation methods (Prodigy, Prodigy enhanced, iDXA), and adjustment equations were developed. There were differences in the three evaluation methods for all body composition parameters. Body fat percentage (%BF) from the iDXA was approximately 1.5-fold greater than the Prodigy, whereas bone mineral density (BMD) was approximately 20% lower. Reanalysis of Prodigy scans with enhanced software attenuated these differences (%BF: - 5.2% [95% CI - 3.5, - 6.8]; and BMD: 1.0% [95% CI 0.0, 1.9]), although significant differences remained for all parameters except total body less head (TBLH) total mass and TBLH BMD, and some regional estimates. There were large differences between the Prodigy and iDXA, with these differences related both to scan resolution and software. Reanalysis of Prodigy scans with enhanced analysis resulted in body composition values much closer to those obtained on the iDXA, although differences remained. As manufacturers update models and software, researchers and clinicians need to be aware of the impact this may have on the longitudinal assessment of body composition, as results may not be comparable across devices and software versions.
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.