Cited by 17Body Composition Measurement TechniquesBone health and osteoporosis researchForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies

Comparison of bioelectrical impedance analysis and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry for estimating bone mineral content

Stone, Tori M., Wingo, Jonathan E., Nickerson, Brett S., Esco, Michael R.·2018·International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to validate single-frequency hand-to-foot bioelectrical impedance analysis (HFBIA) for estimating bone mineral content (BMC) using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry as the criterion measure in healthy men and women aged 18–40 years. A total of 80 men and women participated in this study. BMC was estimated on the same day using HFBIA and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. The HFBIA device provided higher mean BMC values in men and the entire sample, but not in women. A smaller standard error of estimate was observed in women (0.20, corresponding to 8% of the mean reference BMC values) compared with men (0.39, corresponding to 12% of the mean reference BMC values) and the combined sample (0.31). HFBIA provided a smaller constant error and individual estimation error indicated by the 95% limits of agreement in women (−0.05 ± 0.39) compared with men (−0.16 ± 0.78) and the entire sample (−0.10 ± 0.63). In conclusion, although BMC values were found to be more accurate in women, HFBIA overestimated BMC compared with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, especially in individuals with lower values. Given these results, using HFBIA to measure BMC would be inappropriate for diagnostic purposes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1123/ijsnem.2017-0185

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Previous research has shown BIA scales to give inaccurate estimates of bone mineral content in comparison to DXA.

    “Previous research has also shown BIA scales to give inaccurate estimates of bone mineral content in comparison to DXA [59,60], while other research has demonstrated that BIA-derived bone mineral content can be used in multi-compartment models in place of DXA [61].”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 26 · Cited by 17

Authors
Stone, T. M., Wingo, J. E., Nickerson, B. S., & Esco, M. R.
Affiliations
  • University of Alabama (US)
  • Texas A&M International University (US)
Corresponding author
Stone, Tori M.
Venue
International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism
Published
2018-09-01
Volume
28
Issue
5
Pages
542-546
ISSN
  • 1526-484X (ISSN-L)
  • 1543-2742
OpenAlex
W2783408388
Cited by
17
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
FWCI
1.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Body Composition Measurement Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Bone health and osteoporosis research
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
Keywords
bioelectrical impedance analysis, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, bone mineral content, method validation, sex differences, healthy adults
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Absorptiometry, Photon, Bone Density, Electric Impedance, 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