ReviewThe American journal of clinical nutrition2026
Methodological standards for body composition assessment-an expert-endorsed guide for research and clinical applications: bioimpedance, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, computerized tomography, and ultrasound methods.
Review in The American journal of clinical nutrition, 2026. 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.
- Clinical Assessment of Obesity Beyond Body Mass Index: Adiposity Evaluation, Body-Composition Phenotyping and Disease Staging: A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Higher-Protein Nutrition and Concurrent Exercise in Obesity: A Narrative Review of Body Composition, Metabolic Health, and Physical Function.Nutrients · 2026Review
- Extracellular water may increase with age and be independently and negatively associated with muscle strength and physical function in older adults: A cross-sectional study.Physiological reports · 2026Article
- Body composition assessment for risk stratification of hepatic steatosis in patients with type 2 diabetes and MASLD undergoing osteoporosis screening.Frontiers in endocrinology · 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
29 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The assessment of body composition has long been a fundamental component of research and is gaining increasing adoption in clinical practice. This growing interest has drawn new professionals to the field and increased emphasis on its clinical relevance and applications. However, the diversity of assessment techniques and inconsistent terminology create challenges, highlighting the urgent need for harmonized approaches across research and healthcare settings. Commonly employed methods include bioelectrical impedance approaches, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, and computerized tomography, with ultrasound emerging as an increasingly prominent tool. These methods are featured in guidelines for diagnosing conditions such as low muscle mass, malnutrition, sarcopenia, and sarcopenic obesity, among others. This second narrative review in a series, developed by an international panel of experts, focuses on these widely accessible assessment tools that align with clinical recommendations. It presents foundational knowledge, discusses validity and reliability considerations, and offers practical advice on terminology, measurement protocols, data interpretation, and longitudinal monitoring. The report also addresses current limitations and identifies areas needing further research. Our goal is to provide clear, evidence-based guidance that is useful for both experienced practitioners and those newly engaging with body composition assessment. We urge organizations, journals, and stakeholders across the body composition field to adopt the proposed principles and standards to support consistency, transparency, and scientific rigor in both research and clinical care.
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.