ArticleJournal of physical therapy science2024
Comparison of four quick and reliable methods of assessing body fat appropriate for clinical settings among young, middle-age, and older healthy male and female adults.
Article in Journal of physical therapy science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The effect of obesity interventions on male fertility: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Human reproduction update · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
[Purpose] Compare four quick (approximately 60 s), reliable methods of assessing %body-fat (%BF) among young (Y, 18-34 years), middle-age (M, 35-59 years), and older (O, 60-88 years) healthy-adults. [Participants and Methods] One-hundred-eighty healthy males-and-females were equally (n=30) divided into Y, M, and O age groups to assess %BF. The %BF methods were: 1) Bioelectrical-impedance-Inbody770 (IB)-criterion reference; 2) Body-mass-index (BMI); 3) Abdominal-and-hip circumferences (CIR); and 4) Skinfold (SF). [Results] %BF were significantly different among the four body-fat methods and among the three age-groups for both males-and-females. %BF among IB,BMI,CIR, and SF were, respectively, 15.7 ± 4.7%, 19.6 ± 3.2%, 17.3 ± 3.5%, and 12.1 ± 4.1% for Y-males; 18.3 ± 5.7%, 22.8 ± 3.6%, 19.6 ± 3.6%, and 15.6 ± 4.5% for M-males; 24.4 ± 6.5%, 25.8 ± 3.3%, 24.0 ± 4.5%, and 20.0 ± 4.1% for O-males; 24.9 ± 6.9%, 28.9 ± 4.1%, 29.4 ± 4.6%, and 22.4 ± 6.3% for Y-females; 25.1 ± 7.0%, 31.4 ± 4.7%, 33.0 ± 4.5%, and 25.0 ± 4.5% for M-females; 35.1 ± 6.3%, 35.5 ± 4.3%, 38.4 ± 4.8%, and 26.4 ± 3.7% for O-females. [Conclusion]The most accurate %BF-methods to use in clinical settings are CIR for Y-and-M-males, CIR and BMI for O-males, SF for Y-and M-females, and BMI for O-females. The least accurate %BF methods are BMI and SF for Y-males, BMI for M-males, SF for O-males, BMI and CIR for Y-and M-females, and SF for O-females. While all 4-methods of assessing %BF can easily and quickly be employed in clinical settings, some methods significantly underestimate or overestimate %BF and yield different results among varying age groups and sex. These findings help identify people at early health risk of cardiometabolic disease, with O-males and O-females at higher risk.
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.