ArticleSports medicine international open2026
Body Composition Analysis Methods in Adolescent Athletes: A Systematic Review.
Article in Sports medicine international open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Discriminatory Capacity of Anthropometric Indicators and Physical Fitness Tests for Identifying Waist-to-Height Ratio-Defined Cardiometabolic Risk in Adolescents According to Sex and Biological Maturity.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Comparison of Anthropometric Equations to Estimate Body Composition in Chilean Male Adolescent Soccer Players.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2026Article
- Body Composition Differences Among Individual, Team, and Combat Sport Athletes Enrolled in a Spanish Sports Technification Program.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Body composition analysis in adolescent athletes is critical for assessing fat mass percentage and fat-free mass. However, measurement inaccuracies can compromise results. Additionally, there is a lack of reliable reference methods to evaluate the accuracy of field measurement techniques. This review evaluates the reliability and validity of methods in adolescent athletes and provides evidence-based recommendations for best practice. The search (Pubmed and Scopus) followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and PICO criteria related to adolescent athletes in bioelectrical impedance analysis, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, air displacement plethysmography and skinfold thickness measurements. Thirty-one studies out of 4,408 records met the eligibility criteria. Estimating fat mass percentage and fat-free mass in adolescent athletes is moderately reliable and valid. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry is often regarded as the criterion standard particularly for validating equations in bioelectrical impedance analysis and skinfold measurements. Its assumptions regarding tissue density and confounding factors limit precision. Air displacement plethysmography and hydrostatic weighing are limited in athletes with extreme body mass or atypical fat distribution. Recent calculation formulas validated for adolescents are rare and inadequate for athletes. In summary, two- and three-compartment models reflect reduced accuracy in adolescent athletes, making four-compartment models preferable. Field methods like bioelectrical impedance analysis and skinfolds require further validation due to the lack of reliable reference methods in this specific population.
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.