ArticleEuropean journal of applied physiology2025
Measured thoracic gas volume using the bod pod air displacement plethysmography system versus three predictions.
Article in European journal of applied physiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
purposeBod Pod air displacement plethysmography is a common method to estimate body fat percentage (%BF). To determine body volume from this method, thoracic gas volume (TGV) must be quantified. Measured TGV was compared to three predictions: the default prediction formula in the Bod Pod software from Crapo (CRAPO), a relatively new prediction that relies on height and body mass as the predictors from Ducharme (DUCHARME), and a child-specific formula from Fields (FIELDS).
methodsUniversity club sport athletes (121 men, 80 women) completed the breathing maneuver in the Bod Pod necessary to obtain measured TGV. Values from the three TGV predictions were compared to measured TGV with a one-way repeated measures ANOVA. Linear regression was used to obtain standard error of estimate (SEE), and Bland-Altman plots were used to evaluate bias.
resultsSignificant (P < .001) bias exists for all three prediction equations such that individuals with small TGV are overpredicted and those with large TGV are underpredicted. SEEs were similar (0.63-0.66 L) for all three equations. On average, CRAPO and FIELDS underestimated (P < .001) measured TGV by -0.25 L and -0.43 L, respectively, but the difference between DUCHARME and measured TGV (0.07 L) was not significant (P = .813). There were fewer large errors (≥ 2%BF) from DUCHARME (25%) than from CRAPO (31%) or FIELDS (37%).
conclusionTGV should be measured. If it must be predicted, DUCHARME offers a slightly better prediction than CRAPO or FIELDS for young adult athletes, particularly those at the extremes of the TGV continuum.
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.