ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2025
Comparison study of bioelectrical impedance analyzers for measuring lower limb muscle mass in middle-aged and elderly adults.
Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Applications of bioimpedance measurement in clinical and allied fields: a comprehensive review.Biomedical engineering online · 2026Review
- Development and Validation of the Low Sit-High Step Test for Assessing Lower-Extremity Function in Sarcopenia.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Evaluating muscle aging during relaxed standing, squats and lunges through electrical bioimpedance.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Bioelectrical impedance analysis instruments: how do they differ, what do we need for clinical assessment?Current opinion in clinical nutrition and metabolic care · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Lower limb muscle mass (LLMM) accounts for more than 50% of the total body skeletal muscle mass. Assessing leg muscle mass in middle-aged and elderly individuals is crucial for the prevention and diagnosis of sarcopenia. Current bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) devices are capable of measuring LLMM, but validation studies are limited. This study compares the accuracy of BIA devices with different frequencies for measuring LLMM in middle-aged and elderly populations. Methods: LLMM measurements were obtained using the following devices: foot-to-foot dual-frequency (StarBIA201, 5, 50 KHz), multi-segment single-frequency (Tanita BC418, 50 KHz), dual-frequency (InBody270, 20, 100 KHz), triple-frequency (Tanita MC780MA, 5, 50, 250 KHz), and six-frequency (InBody770, 1, 5, 50, 250, 500, 1,000 KHz). Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) served as the reference standard. Comparisons were conducted using the following metrics: (1) mean difference (bias), (2) limits of agreement (LOA), (3) Pearson correlation coefficients, and (4) ordinary least product (OLP) regression analysis. Results: A total of 153 community-dwelling individuals aged over 55 years (102 females, 51 males) were recruited. The average age of participants was 67.5 ± 8.9 years, with a BMI of 23.9 ± 3.9 kg/m Conclusion: This study demonstrates that the four-electrode foot-to-foot BIA method shows significant practicality and potential in assessing LLMM. Compared to multi-frequency BIA and DXA, this method is simpler to operate and more convenient, making it particularly suitable for preliminary screening and assessment of sarcopenia in clinical and community settings.
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.