Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39047869›Full record

ArticleClinical nutrition ESPEN2024

Variations in bioelectrical impedance devices impact raw measures comparisons and subsequent prediction of body composition using recommended estimation equations.

Jonathan P Bennett, Devon Cataldi, Yong En Liu, Nisa N Kelly, Brandon K Quon, Maria Cristina Gonzalez, Steven B Heymsfield, John A Shepherd

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical nutrition ESPEN, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors.

Jonathan P BennettDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Hawai'i Cancer Center, 701 Ilalo St, Honolulu, HI, 96813, USA. Electronic address: jbennett@cc.hawaii.edu.
Devon CataldiDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Hawai'i Cancer Center, 701 Ilalo St, Honolulu, HI, 96813, USA.
Yong En LiuDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Hawai'i Cancer Center, 701 Ilalo St, Honolulu, HI, 96813, USA.
Nisa N KellyDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Hawai'i Cancer Center, 701 Ilalo St, Honolulu, HI, 96813, USA.
Brandon K QuonDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Hawai'i Cancer Center, 701 Ilalo St, Honolulu, HI, 96813, USA.
Maria Cristina GonzalezGraduate Program in Nutrition and Foods, Federal University of Pelotas, Rua Gomes Carneiro, 01- Centro, 96010-610, Pelotas, Brazil.
Steven B HeymsfieldPennington Biomedical Research Center, Louisiana State University, 6400 Perkins Rd, Baton Rouge, LA, 70808, USA.
John A ShepherdDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Hawai'i Cancer Center, 701 Ilalo St, Honolulu, HI, 96813, USA.

Funding

Training in Cardiovascular Research at the University of HawaiiT32HL115505 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII AT MANOA · PI Michelle D Tallquist · 2012 to 2026
$3.8M
NHLBI NIH HHS T32 HL115505
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND &

aimsBioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) for body composition estimation is increasingly used in clinical and field settings to guide nutrition and training programs. Due to variations among BIA devices and the proprietary prediction equations used, studies have recommended the use of raw measures of resistance (R) and reactance (X

objectiveWe compared raw measures from three BIA devices to assess inter-device variation and the impact of differences on body composition estimations.

methodsRaw R, X

resultsData from 73 (23.2 ± 4.8 y) athletes were included in the analyses. Technical differences were observed between Z (range 12.2-50.1Ω) measures on the calibrated phantom. Differences in whole-body impedance were apparent due to posture (technological) and electrode placement (biological) factors. This resulted in raw measures for all three devices showing greater dehydration on BIVA compared to published norms for athletes using a separate BIA device. Compared to the 5C FFM, significant differences (p < 0.05) were observed on all three equations for BIA

conclusionsRaw bioimpedance measurements differ among devices due to technical, technological, and biological factors, limiting interchangeability of data across BIA systems. Professionals should be aware of these factors when purchasing systems, comparing data to published reference ranges, or when applying published empirical body composition prediction equations.

Indexed as

Absorptiometry, PhotonBody CompositionElectric ImpedanceAdultAthletesFemaleHumansMaleReproducibility of ResultsYoung AdultAthletesBioelectrical impedance analysisBioelectrical impedance vector analysisBIVABody compositionEmpirical estimationPhase angleValidation

Identifiers

PMID39047869
PMCPMC13660997

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.