Cited by 35Body Composition Measurement TechniquesElectrical and Bioimpedance TomographyEffects of Vibration on Health

Cross-sectional and longitudinal agreement between two multifrequency bioimpedance devices for resistance, reactance, and phase angle values.

Tinsley, Grant M., Moore, M. Lane, Silva, Analiza M., Sardinha, Luis B.·2020·European Journal of Clinical Nutrition

Abstract

Background The use of raw bioelectrical variables, such as resistance (R), reactance (Xc), and phase angle (φ), has been advocated for evaluating physiological changes.Methods Before and after 8 weeks of resistance training, adult females were assessed via multifrequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (MFBIA; Seca® mBCA 515/514) and bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS; ImpediMed® SFB7). Data were analyzed to determine whether cross-sectional estimates and changes (i.e., Δ scores) of R, Xc, and φ differed between devices at 16 shared measurement frequencies ranging from 3 to 1000 kHz.Results Cross-sectionally, strong correlations (r ≥ 0.96) were observed for R across all frequencies, although MFBIA produced values 9-14% greater than BIS. Strong correlations (r ≥ 0.92) for Xc and φ were observed up to frequencies of ~150 kHz. BIS produced greater Xc and φ values at lower frequencies, while MFBIA produced greater values at higher frequencies. In general, proportional bias was not observed, with the exception of Xc at high frequencies and φ at low frequencies. ΔR did not differ between devices at any frequency and was correlated at all frequencies. ΔXc and Δφ did not differ at any frequency and were correlated between devices for frequencies up to ~300 kHz. Proportional bias was generally not observed longitudinally. While individual-level errors were potentially acceptable cross-sectionally, they were concerningly high longitudinally.Conclusion Despite notable differences in the characteristics of the bioimpedance devices and cross-sectional disagreement, strong group-level agreement for detecting changes in R, Xc, and φ was generally observed. However, large errors were observed at the individual level.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41430-019-0496-8

Cites

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 34 · Cited by 35

Authors
Tinsley, G. M., Moore, M. L., Silva, A. M., & Sardinha, L. B.
Affiliations
  • Texas Tech University (US)
  • University of Lisbon (PT)
Corresponding author
Tinsley, Grant M.
Venue
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition
Published
2019-08-27
Volume
74
Issue
6
Pages
900-911
ISSN
  • 0954-3007 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-5640
OpenAlex
W2971315962
Cited by
35
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3
FWCI
2.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Texas Tech University (N/A)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Body Composition Measurement Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Electrical and Bioimpedance Tomography
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Effects of Vibration on Health
Keywords
multifrequency bioelectrical impedance analysis, bioimpedance spectroscopy, resistance training, device agreement, measurement error, proportional bias, resistance, reactance, phase angle, body composition assessment, longitudinal change detection
MeSH terms
Body Composition, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Research Design, Spectrum Analysis, Electric Impedance, Resistance Training, 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