ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2024
Validity and agreement between dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, anthropometry and bioelectrical impedance in the estimation of fat mass in young adults.
Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Agreement and repeatability between manual anthropometry and mobile 3D digital anthropometry in young adults.Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition · 2026Article
- Review
- Adaptive deep learning for quantification and spatial distribution of abdominal adipose tissue from magnetic resonance imaging proton density fat fraction in adults with a body mass index ≥24 kg/mQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Duplicate-Aware Internal Validation of Machine-Learning Models for Classifying a Tanita BIA-Derived High-Adiposity Phenotype Using Simple Anthropometric Predictors.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Six Months of Bikram Yoga: Longitudinal Effects on Body Fat Reduction and Age-Related Responses in Adult Women.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Rethinking Energy Availability from Conceptual Models to Applied Practice: A Narrative Review.Nutrients · 2026Review
- Machine learning-based estimation of trunk fat percentage and its association with cardiometabolic risk leveraging two large national cohorts.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Segmental fat-free mass and lean soft mass: a comparative study with dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) and anthropometry and development of anthropometric prediction models.Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition · 2025Article
- ACTIVA-Senior: Study Design and Protocol for a Preliminary Multidomain Outdoor Intervention Promoting Healthy Aging and Mitigating Psycho-Physiological Decline.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Validity between dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry and bioelectrical impedance for segmental fat analysis and a novel low-cost model developed using anthropometry in young adults.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Article
- Reliability, biological variability, and accuracy of multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis for measuring body composition components.Frontiers in nutrition · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Assessment of fat mass has historically employed various methods like Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA), and bioelectrical impedance (BIA), and anthropometry with its set of formulas. However, doubts persist regarding their validity and interchangeability to evaluate fat mass. This research aimed to determine the validity of anthropometry, and BIA in estimating fat mass Vs DXA, considering the influence of sex and hydration status. Methods: A descriptive, cross-sectional study included 265 young adults (161 males and 104 females), assessed through DXA, BIA in a standing position, and anthropometry. A fat mass estimation formula with DXA, a fat mass estimation formula with BIA and 10 fat mass estimation formulas with anthropometry were calculated. Results: Significant differences were found across DXA, BIA and anthropometry in both kilograms and percentages for the overall sample ( Conclusion: The formulas for fat mass assessment with anthropometry and BIA may not be valid with respect to the values reported with DXA, with the exception of Carter's anthropometry formula for general sample and Evans's anthropometry formula for female sample. BIA could also be an alternative if what is needed is to assess fat mass in women as a group.
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.