Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36618693›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2022

Comparison of body fat percentage assessments by bioelectrical impedance analysis, anthropometrical prediction equations, and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in older women.

María Consuelo Velázquez-Alva, María Esther Irigoyen-Camacho, Marco Antonio Zepeda-Zepeda, Itzam Rangel-Castillo, Isabel Arrieta-Cruz, Luciano Mendoza-Garcés, Antonio Castaño-Seiquer, Javier Flores-Fraile, Roger Gutiérrez-Juárez

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

María Consuelo Velázquez-AlvaDepartment of Health Care, Metropolitan Autonomous University, Unit Xochimilco, Mexico City, Mexico.
María Esther Irigoyen-CamachoDepartment of Health Care, Metropolitan Autonomous University, Unit Xochimilco, Mexico City, Mexico.
Marco Antonio Zepeda-ZepedaDepartment of Health Care, Metropolitan Autonomous University, Unit Xochimilco, Mexico City, Mexico.
Itzam Rangel-CastilloDepartment of Health Care, Metropolitan Autonomous University, Unit Xochimilco, Mexico City, Mexico.
Isabel Arrieta-CruzNational Institute of Geriatrics, Ministry of Health, Mexico City, Mexico.
Luciano Mendoza-GarcésNational Institute of Geriatrics, Ministry of Health, Mexico City, Mexico.
Antonio Castaño-SeiquerFaculty of Dentistry, University of Seville, Seville, Spain.
Javier Flores-FraileDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain.
Roger Gutiérrez-JuárezDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Higher Studies Zaragoza, School of Medicine, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico.
Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana · MXUniversidad de Salamanca · ESUniversidad de Sevilla · ESUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México · MX

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Individuals with high body fat have a higher risk of mortality. Numerous anthropometric-based predictive equations are available for body composition assessments; furthermore, bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) estimates are available. However, in older adults, the validity of body fat estimates requires further investigation. Objective: To assess the agreement between percentage body fat (BF%) estimates by BIA and five predictive equations based on anthropometric characteristics using dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) as reference method. A secondary objective was to identify whether excluding short-stature women improves the agreement of BF% estimates in a group of community-dwelling, older Mexican women. Methods: A concordance analysis of BF% was performed. A total of 121 older women participated in the study. Anthropometric information, BIA, and DXA body composition estimates were obtained. Five equations using anthropometric data were evaluated in order to determine body fat percentage (BF%) using DXA as reference method. Paired Results: The mean age of the study participants was 73.7 (±5.8) years old. BIA and the anthropometric based equations examined showed mean significant differences when tested in the entire sample. For the taller women (height > 145 cm), no significant difference in the paired comparison was found between DXA and BIA of BF% estimates. The mean BF% was 40.3 (±4.8) and 40.7 (±6.2) for DXA and BIA, respectively. The concordance between methods was good (CCC 0.814), (SEE 2.62). Also, in the taller women subset, the Woolcott equation using waist-to-height ratio presented no significant difference in the paired comparison; however, the error of the estimates was high (SEE 3.37) and the concordance was moderate (CCC 0.693). Conclusion: This study found that BIA yielded good results in the estimation of BF% among women with heights over 145 cm. Also, in this group, the Woolcott predictive equation based on waist circumference and height ratio showed no significant differences compared to DXA in the paired comparison; however, the large error of estimates observed may limit its application. In older women, short stature may impact the validity of the body fat percentage estimates of anthropometric-based predictive equations.

Indexed as

aginganthropometricbioelectrical impedancebody fatDXA (dual X-ray absorptiometry)validation studies

Identifiers

PMID36618693
PMCPMC9812576
OpenAlexW4313466934

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.