Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39691170›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2024

Reliability, biological variability, and accuracy of multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis for measuring body composition components.

David P Looney, Erica A Schafer, Christopher L Chapman, Riana R Pryor, Adam W Potter, Brandon M Roberts, Karl E Friedl

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

7 authors.

David P LooneyUnited States Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine (USARIEM), Natick, MA, United States.
Erica A SchaferUnited States Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine (USARIEM), Natick, MA, United States.
Christopher L ChapmanUnited States Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine (USARIEM), Natick, MA, United States.
Riana R PryorCenter for Research and Education in Special Environments, Department of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, United States.
Adam W PotterUnited States Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine (USARIEM), Natick, MA, United States.
Brandon M RobertsUnited States Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine (USARIEM), Natick, MA, United States.
Karl E FriedlUnited States Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine (USARIEM), Natick, MA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) systems are gaining popularity for use in research and fitness assessments as the technology improves and becomes more affordable and easier to use. Multifrequency BIA (MF-BIA) may improve accuracy and precision using octopolar contacts for segmental analyses. Purpose: Evaluate reliability, biological variability, and accuracy of component measures (total body water, mass, and composition) of commercially available MF-BIA system (InBody 770, Cerritos, California, USA). Methods: Fourteen healthy military-age adults were assessed by MF-BIA in duplicate on five laboratory visits across 3 weeks (10 measures each). Participants were evaluated at the same time of day after refraining from strenuous exercise (> 48 h), alcohol consumption (> 24 h), and caffeine, nicotine, and food (> 10 h). Systematic error (test-retest reliability) and biological variability (day-to-day reliability) were summarized by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) values determined for body mass (fat, fat-free, total) and body water (extracellular, intracellular, total). Body composition measurements derived from BIA on the second visit were also tested for accuracy compared to dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Results: Test-retest reliability was very high for all measurements of whole-body water and mass (ICC ≥ 0.999) and high for regional body water and mass (ICC 0.973-1.000). Biological variability was observable with very minor differences between tests (same day) for total and regional body water (0.0-0.2 L) and total and regional body mass measurements (0.0-0.2 kg); while between day differences were slightly higher (0.0-0.5 L and 0.1-0.7 kg). Compared to DXA, the MF-BIA whole-body measures showed an offset in %BF (Bias -4.0 ± 2.8%; Standard error of the estimate (SEE), 2.6%), an overprediction for total body fat-free mass (Bias 2.8 ± 2.1 kg; SEE 2.2 kg) and an underprediction of total body fat mass (Bias -2.9 ± 2.0 kg; SEE 1.9 kg). Conclusion: Under controlled conditions with fit and healthy men and women, this MF-BIA system has high methodological reliability and demonstrates stable day-to-day measurements of major body composition components. Previously reported ~3% body fat offset compared to criterion methods was again confirmed. Precision of the InBody 770 shows consistency and supports further testing of this specific device as a new military standards method and suitability across a wider range of %BF.

Indexed as

BIABMIbody compositionbody waterDXAFMI

Identifiers

PMID39691170
PMCPMC11649400

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.