Cited by 50Body Composition Measurement TechniquesElectrical and Bioimpedance TomographyReliability and Agreement in Measurement

Assessing the reliability and cross-sectional and longitudinal validity of fifteen bioelectrical impedance analysis devices

Open access
Siedler, Madelin R., Rodriguez, Christian, Stratton, Matthew T., Harty, Patrick S., Keith, Dale S., Green, Jacob J., Boykin, Jake R., White, Sarah J. +3 more·2023·British Journal of Nutrition

Abstract

The purpose of this investigation was to expand upon the limited existing research examining the test–retest reliability, cross-sectional validity and longitudinal validity of a sample of bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) devices as compared with a laboratory four-compartment (4C) model. Seventy-three healthy participants aged 19–50 years were assessed by each of fifteen BIA devices, with resulting body fat percentage estimates compared with a 4C model utilising air displacement plethysmography, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and bioimpedance spectroscopy. A subset of thirty-seven participants returned for a second visit 12–16 weeks later and were included in an analysis of longitudinal validity. The sample of devices included fourteen consumer-grade and one research-grade model in a variety of configurations: hand-to-hand, foot-to-foot and bilateral hand-to-foot (octapolar). BIA devices demonstrated high reliability, with precision error ranging from 0·0 to 0·49 %. Cross-sectional validity varied, with constant error relative to the 4C model ranging from −3·5 (sd 4·1) % to 11·7 (sd 4·7) %, standard error of the estimate values of 3·1–7·5 % and Lin’s concordance correlation coefficients (CCC) of 0·48–0·94. For longitudinal validity, constant error ranged from −0·4 (sd 2·1) % to 1·3 (sd 2·7) %, with standard error of the estimate values of 1·7–2·6 % and Lin’s CCC of 0·37–0·78. While performance varied widely across the sample investigated, select models of BIA devices (particularly octapolar and select foot-to-foot devices) may hold potential utility for the tracking of body composition over time, particularly in contexts in which the purchase or use of a research-grade device is infeasible.

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 · 10.1017/s0007114522003749

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Such data may no longer be representative over time because companies producing such software can alter the equations without notifying users.

    “Furthermore, such data may no longer be representative over time because companies producing such software can alter the equations without notifying users [29].”

    From High-standard predictive equations for estimating body composition using bioelectrical impedance analysis: a systematic review (2024) · cites this paper as [29]

    The Discussion’s Strengths and limitations section (page unavailable) reports that a firmware update during data collection changed one device’s algorithm. The Longitudinal validity section cautions that some devices may not accurately track body-composition changes over time. Neither passage says the change occurred without notifying users or establishes that the update made earlier data unrepresentative. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Siedler, M. R., Rodriguez, C., Stratton, M. T., Harty, P. S., Keith, D. S., Green, J. J., Boykin, J. R., White, S. J., Williams, A. D., DeHaven, B., & Tinsley, G. M.
Affiliations
Texas Tech University (US)
Corresponding author
Tinsley, Grant M.
Venue
British Journal of Nutrition
Published
2022-11-21
Volume
130
Issue
5
Pages
827-840
ISSN
  • 0007-1145 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-2662
OpenAlex
W4309447729
Cited by
50
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 2
FWCI
5.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal Of Nutrition (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ThinkTech (Texas Tech University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • ThinkTech (Texas Tech University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Texas Tech University
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Body Composition Measurement Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Electrical and Bioimpedance Tomography
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
Keywords
bioelectrical impedance analysis, body composition assessment, body fat percentage, test-retest reliability, longitudinal validity, four-compartment model, precision error
MeSH terms
Body Composition, Cross-Sectional Studies, Humans, Reproducibility of Results, Absorptiometry, Photon, Electric Impedance

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