ArticleEuropean journal of clinical nutrition2026
Examining intra- and inter-tester reliability of post-scan dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry regional body composition analysis in athletes.
Article in European journal of clinical nutrition, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesThe purpose of this investigation was (i) to assess the intra- and inter-tester reliability of delineating regions of interest (ROIs) in Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA) for measuring regional fat mass (FM), lean soft tissue (LST), and bone mineral content (BMC) and (ii) to investigate the prevalence of inconsistencies between automatically defined ROIs and manufacturer guidelines. A secondary aim was to assess whether discrepancies in the delineation of ROIs by different testers could bias regional body composition changes over time.
methodsDXA measurements were performed with a total body scan in 86 athletes (64.0% females) from 12 sports. Two independent testers conducted post-scan analysis following the manufacturer's guidelines. Intra- and inter-tester reliability was evaluated using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), mean differences, paired samples t-tests and Bland-Altman plots.
resultsIntra- and inter-tester reliability was nearly perfect (ICC: 0.998-1.000) across all regions and components (FM, LST, and BMC). Mean differences were consistently <1% for all regions and components, except for left arm FM (1.4%; SD = 4.6%) in inter-tester reliability. Inconsistencies between automatically defined ROIs and manufacturer guidelines were frequent, with chest line corrections (which separate the arm from the trunk) required in 91.9% of scans. Inter-tester ICC for regional changes (n = 52) ranged from 0.668 to 0.981, with wider limits of agreement than cross-sectional estimates.
conclusionDXA post-scan regional analysis can be performed with very high reliability and low measurement error, but manual review is essential. When monitoring changes over time, baseline and follow-up scans should be analyzed by the same evaluator.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41998350What 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.