ArticleInternational journal of exercise science2023
Estimates of Agreement Between Three Low-cost and One High-cost Bioelectrical Impedance Analyzers using Classical and Contemporary Dancers.
Article in International journal of exercise science, 2023. 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine the concordance between the estimates of three low-cost and one high-cost electrical bioimpedance equipment (BIA) in classical and contemporary dancers. Participation in the study included 28 subjects (15 men and 13 women) 18 to 35 years old, who perform classical and/or modern dance, thrice weekly, from 60 to 120 min per session, for 10 years or more. Those who presented any disease, consumed drugs, supplements or multivitamins; had prostheses, surgical metal parts or pacemakers, had problems maintaining the correct anatomical positions for taking measurements, and pregnant women were excluded. Their body composition was determined with 3 low-cost BIA equipment (OMRON HBF-306C, SKULPT CHISEL and BEURER BF 1000) and one high-cost equipment (SECA mBCA 515). The results indicated that in men, SKULTP in its "complete" modality had the highest agreement with SECA (CCC=0.73, 95% CI=0.46-0.88) for body fat percentage (%BF); in women, OMRON in its "normal" modality had the highest agreement with SECA (CCC=0.85, 95% CI=0.62-0.94) for %BF; while BEURER had poor concordances (CCC=0.86-0.03) for the rest of the estimates in its different modalities, in both sexes. It is concluded that the lower cost equipment (SKULPT and OMRON) were the most consistent with SECA for %BF in normal weight dancers. BEURER had the lowest agreements with SECA, in all its modalities, as well as inconsistent estimates for all parameters. Therefore, there was no relationship between the cost of the low-cost impedance equipment and its agreement with those of a high-cost one.
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.