SynthesisFrontiers in nutrition2026
InBody bioelectrical impedance research in clinical nutrition: a bibliometric analysis of trends, applications, and evidence gaps, 2002-2025.
Synthesis in Frontiers in 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: InBody analyzers are widely used for body composition assessment in clinical nutrition research, but no platform-specific bibliometric study has mapped the development, dominant topics, or evidence gaps of the InBody literature. This study examined InBody-related research from 2002 to 2025. Methods: English-language original research articles were retrieved from the Science Citation Index Expanded within the Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection using the search term "InBody." Records were analyzed using Bibliometrix and VOSviewer. Analyses included descriptive bibliometrics, country and institutional productivity, journal productivity, citation impact, author-keyword co-occurrence, trend-topic analysis, and logistic growth modeling. Cross-database validation was conducted using Scopus and PubMed. Results: The final WoS corpus included 406 articles across 217 sources, with an annual growth rate of 19.7% and a mean of 17.7 citations per article; 294 articles (72.4%) were published from 2020 onward. South Korea contributed the largest fractional share (14.6%), while the United States produced the highest mean annual citation rate among the top 10 countries (4.93 citations/year). The logistic model fitted cumulative output closely (R Conclusion: InBody-related research is expanding rapidly and shifting from device validation toward clinical application, particularly in geriatric and clinical nutrition. Three priorities emerge: (i) device-model-specific and population-specific validation, particularly under-represented regions; (ii) population- and condition-specific phase-angle reference ranges; and (iii) longitudinal and intervention-responsive designs rather than additional cross-sectional DXA comparisons. Addressing these priorities may support more consistent, evidence-based interpretation of InBody-derived body composition measures in nutrition and clinical practice.
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.