Cited by 75Body Composition Measurement TechniquesNutrition and Health in AgingClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology

The Use of Technology for Estimating Body Composition: Strengths and Weaknesses of Common Modalities in a Clinical Setting

Teigen, Levi M., Kuchnia, Adam J., Mourtzakis, Marina, Earthman, Carrie P.·2017·Nutrition in Clinical Practice

Abstract

Assessment of body composition, both at single time points and longitudinally, is particularly important in clinical nutrition practice. It provides a means for the clinician to characterize nutrition status at a single time point, aiding in the identification and diagnosis of malnutrition, and to monitor changes over time by providing real‐time information on the adequacy of nutrition interventions. Objective body composition measurement tools are available clinically but are often underused in nutrition care, particularly in the United States. This is, in part, due to a number of factors concerning their use in a clinical context: cost and accessibility of equipment, as well as interpretability of the results. This article focuses on the factors influencing interpretation of results in a clinical setting. Body composition assessment, regardless of the method, is inherently limited by its indirect nature. Therefore, an understanding of the strengths and limitations of any method is essential for meaningful interpretation of its results. This review provides an overview of body composition technologies available clinically (computed tomography, dual‐energy x‐ray absorptiometry, bioimpedance, ultrasound) and discusses the strengths and limitations of each device.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0884533616676264

Cites

124 of 124 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?

  • BIA is one of the most convenient techniques for assessing body composition in a clinical setting and in epidemiological approaches, mainly because it is easy to apply, fast, and non-invasive, in addition to having a relatively low cost.

    “The BIA is one of the most convenient techniques for assessing body composition in a clinical setting and in epidemiological approaches, mainly, because it is easy to apply, fast, and non-invasive, in addition to having a relatively low cost (5, 45, 46).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Teigen, L. M., Kuchnia, A. J., Mourtzakis, M., & Earthman, C. P.
Affiliations
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • University of Waterloo (CA)
Corresponding author
Earthman, Carrie P.
Venue
Nutrition in Clinical Practice
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-11-09
Volume
32
Issue
1
Pages
20-29
ISSN
  • 0884-5336 (ISSN-L)
  • 1941-2452
OpenAlex
W2584096274
Cited by
75
References
124
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7
FWCI
4.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nutrition in Clinical Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Body Composition Measurement Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Nutrition and Health in Aging
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Clinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
Keywords
body composition assessment, clinical nutrition, malnutrition diagnosis, computed tomography, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, bioimpedance, ultrasound, technology limitations, interpretation of results
MeSH terms
Body Composition, Diffusion of Innovation, Humans, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Ultrasonography, Absorptiometry, Photon, Nutrition Assessment, Electric Impedance, Malnutrition, Nutritional Sciences

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