Cited by 50Body Composition Measurement TechniquesNutrition and Health in AgingBone health and osteoporosis research

Accuracy of a predictive bioelectrical impedance analysis equation for estimating appendicular skeletal muscle mass in a non-Caucasian sample of older people

Rangel Peniche, Diana Beatriz, Raya Giorguli, Graciela, Alemán-Mateo, Heliodoro·2015·Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics

Abstract

Objective To design and validate a predictive BIA equation to estimate ASM in a sample of non-Caucasian older people and to explore the accuracy of two previous single-frequency BIA published equations.Method This is a cross-sectional study in 213 physically-independent and apparently healthy older men and women subjects from a central region of Mexico. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, anthropometry, resistance, reactance, and other independent predictive variables were assessed. The total sample was randomized and split into two sub-samples: one group for the development of the predictive single-frequency BIA equation and the other for its validation. The equation was derived by step-wise regression, the goodness of fit was assessed by the highest determination coefficient (R(2)) and precision by the lowest root mean square error. In the validation sample, the accuracy of the new and the published BIA equations was tested by pure error. In addition, Bland and Altman analysis tested the bias.Results The selected model had a R(2) of 0.91 and a RMSE of 1.01 kg and fulfilled every regression assumption. The predictive variables included were: Ht(2)/R, sex, and body weight. The new BIA equation showed a PE close to RMSE of the estimate with no significant bias. The published BIA equations proved to be inaccurate and had significant bias.Conclusions This new single-frequency BIA-derived equation was precise, accurate and free of bias. Published BIA equations to estimate ASM should not be used indistinctly in other ethnic groups without validation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.archger.2015.03.007

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 45 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rangel Peniche, D. B., Raya Giorguli, G., & Alemán-Mateo, H.
Affiliations
Centro de Investigación en Alimentación y Desarrollo (MX)
Venue
Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-07
Volume
61
Issue
1
Pages
39-43
ISSN
0167-4943 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1967747866
Cited by
50
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Body Composition Measurement Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Nutrition and Health in Aging
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Bone health and osteoporosis research
Keywords
bioelectrical impedance analysis, appendicular skeletal muscle mass, older adults, non-Caucasian populations, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aging, Body Composition, Body Weight, Chile, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Predictive Value of Tests, Reproducibility of Results, Absorptiometry, Photon, Electric Impedance, Muscle, Skeletal, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review