ArticleHeliyon2023
Testing the concurrent validity and reliability of a lipowise digital skinfold caliper to assess muscle mass in healthy young adults.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of Skinfolds Based Predictive Equations for Estimating Body Fat Percentage in Older Adults: A Comparison Using Digital Adipometer (Lipowise) and Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry (DXA).Clinical obesity · 2026Article
- Systematic organisation of skinfold callipers: an approach based on physical-mechanical properties and characteristics.The British journal of nutrition · 2025Review
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 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to assess the validity and reliability of a novel tool to assess skinfolds and to compare the muscle mass measured through dual-x-ray-absorptiometry (DXA) and estimated using the Lee equation from the values of the skinfolds and girths in a healthy young adult population. Methods: The present study followed a cross-sectional design, including 38 participants, with 27 males (22.04 ± 5.20 years) and 11 females (21.55 ± 2.39 years). The measurement protocol included a DXA evaluation, basic measurements of body mass and stature, eight skinfolds with two skinfold calipers of different brands (Harpenden and Lipowise), and three girths. The order in which the skinfold calipers were used was randomized. The muscle mass was then calculated using the formula established by Lee et al. Results: No significant differences were found between the two skinfold calipers considering all the outcomes (p > 0.05). The correlation coefficients were between 0.724 and 0.991, which suggest very-large to nearly perfect correlations. The correlations performed revealed that muscle mass estimated from DXA is nearly perfectly correlated with both muscle mass estimated from the data obtained with the Harpenden skinfold caliper (r = 0.955) and muscle mass estimated from the data obtained with the Lipowise skinfold caliper (r = 0.954). From the results, we conclude that Lipowise caliper is an accurate skinfold caliper and it can be an alternative tool for the technician that need to assess body fat or muscle mass in precise, valid and time efficient evaluation. It should be noted that the caution to use skinfold calipers interchangeable with each other when evaluating skinfolds remains a necessity and is advisable to perform the measurements with the same brand and model of skinfold caliper when the purpose is to perform follow-up assessments.
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.