Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 426

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reliability and Agreement of Various InBody Body Composition Analyzers as Compared to Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry in Healthy Men and Women

McLester, Cherilyn N., Nickerson, Brett S., Kliszczewicz, Brian M., McLester, John R.·2020·Journal of Clinical Densitometry

Abstract

BACKGROUND Bioelectrical impedance analysis has evolved over the years to include the use of multiple frequencies and impedance measurements to improve the accuracy and reliability of body composition estimates. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the reliability of the InBody230, InBody720, and InBody770 to measure body fat percent (BF%), fat mass (FM), and fat-free mass (FFM) in the general population and to compare results to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). METHODS A total of 31 males and 36 females participated in 2 d of testing separated by 24-72 h. Each visit consisted of a DXA scan, and analysis with the InBody230, InBody720, and InBody770. RESULTS All 3 bioelectrical impedance devices (InBody230, InBody720, and InBody770) were reliable in men and women as indicated by high intraclass correlation coefficients for BF% (≥0.98), FM (≥0.98), and FFM (≥0.99) and low standard error of measurement for BF% (0.77%-0.99%), FM (0.54-0.87 kg), and FFM (0.58-0.84 kg) and minimum difference for BF% (2.12%-2.73%), FM (1.49-2.39 kg), and FFM (1.60-2.32 kg), respectively. When examining the agreement between the 3 InBody analyzers with DXA, systematic bias (underestimation of BF% and FM and overestimation of FFM) was present for all comparisons (p < 0.05) while proportional bias was present for FM in women and FFM in men. However, there was small individual error for all comparisons as indicated by the standard error of estimate and 95% limits of agreement. CONCLUSION The InBody analyzers produce small individual error, which suggest these methods can be used as a surrogate when DXA is not available; however, practitioners should be aware of the systematic bias for all comparisons and proportional bias for FM in women and FFM in men. Furthermore, findings revealed that the research grade models, InBody720 and InBody770, added minimal benefit over the portable InBody230 when assessing BF%, FM, and FFM.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jocd.2018.10.008

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 26 references

Cited by

See all 426

Metadata

Authors
McLester, C. N., Nickerson, B. S., Kliszczewicz, B. M., & McLester, J. R.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Densitometry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-07
Volume
23
Issue
3
Pages
443-450
ISSN
1094-6950 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2899212211
Cited by
426
References
26
FWCI
13.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reliability and Agreement of Various InBody Body Composition Analyzers as Compared to Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry in Healthy Men and Women. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jocd.2018.10.008
The paper
McLester, C. N., Nickerson, B. S., Kliszczewicz, B. M., & McLester, J. R. (2020). Reliability and Agreement of Various InBody Body Composition Analyzers as Compared to Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry in Healthy Men and Women. Journal of Clinical Densitometry. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocd.2018.10.008

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.