SynthesisPloS one2024
Validity and reliability of portable A-mode ultrasound in measuring body fat percentage: A systematic review with meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Muscle thickness from amplitude mode ultrasound and clinical outcomes in patients with cancer.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Equations for Assessing Body Composition by Ultrasound in Older Adults: A Narrative Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- A Decade of Progress in Ultrasound Assessments of Subcutaneous and Total Body Fat: A Scoping Review.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present Systematic Review with Meta-analysis study aimed to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Portable A-mode Ultrasound (P-US) for measuring body fat percentage (BF%). Only studies with participants of both genders which had assessed BF% using P-US compared to the reference standard were selected. Publications up until May 31, 2022 were searched in the MEDLINE, COCHRANE, Science Direct, Web of Science, LILACS, SciELO, PEDro, SPORT Discus, CINAHL and SCOPUS databases. QUADAS-2 was used to assess the risk of bias in the validity studies and QAREL was used for the methodological quality of reliability studies. The JAMOVI software program synthesized the results, from which the Pearson Correlation Coefficient (r) or the square root of the Multiple Linear Regression Determination Coefficient (R2) were extracted for the validity studies, and the Mean of Errors of the Bland-Altman Test (ME) and the Confidence Interval (95%CI) with Upper and Lower Limits for the reliability studies. A total of 13 studies were included, generating 26 results for the quantitative synthesis, 14 for validity and 12 for reliability. Regarding the validity results, a strong correlation was identified between the equipment (r = 0.870 [0.845-0.895], P<0.001), with moderate and true heterogeneity (I2 = 53.47%, P = 0.003), presenting publication bias. A small effect size was identified regarding the reliability results, overestimating the results due to chance between the devices (ME = 0.207 [-0.798-1.212], P = 0.686), with low heterogeneity also due to chance (I2 = 19.44%, P = 0.253), with no publication bias. All of the evaluated studies showed some violation of the instruments, confirming the high risk of bias and the low methodological quality. There is concern with heterogeneity for the validity results explained by the subgroups' analysis. The P-US associated with anthropometric perimeters satisfactorily measures the BF% with samples greater than 100 participants, and males. The results in the reliability assessment show high agreement and high variability, greatly expanding the confidence interval, which should be viewed with reservations. This review received financial support from the Brazilian Air Force. The study was registered with PROSPERO under the number CRD42020166617.
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.