Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Bioelectrical impedance analysis for body composition assessment: reflections on accuracy, clinical utility, and standardisation
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Bioelectrical impedance analysis for body composition assessment: reflections on accuracy, clinical utility, and standardisation
Do you wish to request the book?
Bioelectrical impedance analysis for body composition assessment: reflections on accuracy, clinical utility, and standardisation
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Bioelectrical impedance analysis for body composition assessment: reflections on accuracy, clinical utility, and standardisation
2019
Overview
Bioelectrical impedance analysis is an extremely popular method for assessment of body composition. Despite its wide-spread use over the past thirty years, its accuracy and clinical value is still questioned. Most frequently, criticisms focus on its purported poor absolute accuracy and that different impedance analysers or prediction equations fail to measure body composition identically. This perspective review highlights that the magnitude of errors associated with impedance methods are not dissimilar to those observed for so-called gold standard methods. It is argued that the focus on statistically significant but small differences between methods can obscure operational equivalence and that such differences may be of minor clinical significance. Finally, the need for better standardization of protocols and the need for consensus on what is a minimal clinically important difference between methods is highlighted.
