ArticleJornal de pediatria
Comparison of electrical bioimpedance in newborns with electrodes positioned on the right and left sides of the body.
Article in Jornal de pediatria. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveBioelectrical impedance analysis is a method used to assess body composition; a noninvasive test performed using an easy-to-handle portable device used in clinical practice. However, nonstandard methods in neonates hinder external validation and reliability. Currently, bioimpedance analysis is performed in newborns with electrodes positioned on the right side of the body; however, the use of medical devices, including vascular access, can prevent its use.
methodsAn uncontrolled before-after clinical trial comparing resistance and reactance measurements by bioelectrical impedance analysis on both sides was conducted. Measurements were performed immediately after the randomization of the initial measurement side. The sample size was calculated by considering a 10% deviation from the mean resistance and reactance values of previous studies with alpha and beta errors of 10% and 20%, respectively. Binary linear regression was used to quantify the correlation.
resultsA significant difference was observed between resistance (672.88 ± 136.30 vs. 649.22 ± 119.59) and reactance (46.34 ± 17.99 vs. 44.439 ± 19.42) values measured on the right and left sides, respectively. However, when measured on both sides of the body, resistance and reactance values showed a good correlation (0.98 for both models, p < 0.001). Positioning the electrodes on the left side significantly affected the resistance and reactance values measured by bioelectrical impedance analysis compared with those on the right side.
conclusionElectrodes positioned on opposite sides of the body generated different resistance and reactance values, implying the need to use the right side exclusively for standard positioning. This restriction can create difficulties for the routine use of this technique in newborns.
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.