ArticleJournal of electrical bioimpedance2026
Evaluation of indirect methods for estimating body fat in dogs using electrical bioimpedance and morphometry.
Article in Journal of electrical bioimpedance, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Canine obesity causes metabolic issues and reduces quality of life. Assessing adiposity remains challenging due to limited indirect and reference methods. Electrical bioimpedance (BIA) is a proposed tool, but agreement between morphometric and BIA equations, and the body condition score (BCS) role, remains poorly explored in heterogeneous canine populations. Objective: To evaluate agreement among indirect methods (BCS, morphometry, BIA) for estimating canine body fat and assess BIA's viability for nutritional evaluation. Materials and methods: A cross-sectional study included 17 healthy dogs from Villamaría, Colombia. Body condition was assessed using 5- and 9-point scales. Morphometric variables and single-frequency 50 kHz BIA parameters (resistance, reactance, phase angle) were recorded. Body fat percentage (%BF) was estimated using four established equations. Method agreement was evaluated via Bland-Altman analysis and Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC). Differences in bioelectrical parameters and lipid profiles between obese and lean dogs were analyzed using independent t-tests. Results: Morphometric methods showed the highest agreement (CCC = 0.759). Conversely, comparisons involving BIA-derived equations exhibited low or negative agreement, with Bland-Altman analyses revealing wide limits of agreement. Obese dogs had higher resistance and lower phase angles than lean dogs, though differences were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). This lack of significance must be interpreted cautiously due to the small sample size, particularly the obese group (n = 4). HDL cholesterol was significantly lower in obese dogs (p = 0.030), with no differences in total cholesterol. Conclusion: The evaluated indirect methods showed poor agreement and are not clinically interchangeable. Without a reference method like DEXA, accuracy cannot be determined. While raw BIA parameters aligned physiologically with body condition, their use remains preliminary and requires validation in larger, reference-controlled studies.
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.