ArticleJournal of electrical bioimpedance2026
Measurement error in bioimpedance spectroscopy: The role of electrode type and analyzer.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS) is a non-invasive method used to assess body composition in a variety of settings. Although BIS has been reported as an accurate measure of body composition, the magnitude of within-day technical error associated with different BIS devices and electrode types remains unknown. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess the technical error of measurement (TEM) between single-tab and double-tab electrodes across two BIS devices for resistance, reactance, phase angle, total body water, fat-free mass, and fat mass. One hundred and four adults reported to the laboratory for a single visit, undergoing twelve different assessments utilizing single- and double-tab electrodes on two BIS analyzers of the same model. The within-day technical error was assessed as the absolute and relative TEM for each of the variables. The results indicated that intra-analyzer assessments displayed the lowest amount of error for all the variables (relative TEM = 0.05 - 0.28%) while the largest TEMs were observed for comparisons between single-tab and double-tab assessments (relative TEM = 1.04 - 3.68%), except for reactance. For reactance alone, the TEMs were greatest for the inter-analyzer comparison with double-tab electrodes (absolute TEM = 1.07 Ω; relative TEM = 1.68%). While all assessments displayed relatively low technical error, the present results reinforce the importance of consistently using the same analyzer and electrode type to minimize errors when assessing body composition using BIS, particularly when seeking to identify subtle changes in BIS output.
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.