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

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 to a laboratory four-compartment (4C) model. Seventy-three healthy participants aged 19-50 were assessed by each of 15 BIA devices, with resulting body fat percentage (BFP) estimates compared to a 4C model utilizing air displacement plethysmography, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, and bioimpedance spectroscopy. A subset of 37 participants returned for a second visit 12-16 weeks later and were included in an analysis of longitudinal validity. The sample of devices included 14 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±4.1% to 11.7±4.7%, standard error of the estimate values of 3.1% to 7.5%, and Lin’s concordance correlation coefficients of 0.48 to 0.94. For longitudinal validity, constant error ranged from -0.4±2.1% to 1.3±2.7%, with standard error of the estimate values of 1.7% to 2.6% and Lin’s concordance correlation coefficients of 0.37 to 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.

Exploring the Relationship between Anaerobic and Morphological Characteristics and Competition Success in Young Male Slovenian Judo Athletes

“…Body composition was not assessed via the DXA method due to a lack of availability [66] and funding. However, BIA has been showed to be a reliable [18] and valid [19,20] method if the specific testing guidelines [16,17] are followed. Moreover, in BIA measurements, it was reported that water content impacts the reactance and resistance of these measurements [82][83][84].…”

“…The reliability of the BIA measurement has been reported to be influenced by factors including electrodes, the operator, the subject, the environment [13], food, alcohol, physical exercise and the time of day [15]. However, following the necessary manufacturer and laboratory testing guidelines developed over time [16,17], the measurements have been shown to be reliable [18] and valid [19,20] compared to DXA. BIA testing reports several parameters like muscle mass, fat mass and body hydration status, among others [4], and has been widely used in judo research [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30].…”

Dose–Response of Creatine Supplementation on Cognitive Function in Healthy Young Adults

“…The same researcher performed the BIA test for all participants. It is important to note that BIA is not the gold standard for body composition evaluation, and although it is not a primary outcome in this study, the BIA results depend on BIA-based predictive equations with oscillating values depending on the formula applied and device [ 23 ].…”

High-standard predictive equations for estimating body composition using bioelectrical impedance analysis: a systematic review

“…Many of these studies merely mention the type of software employed, making it impossible to discern which formulas were used to convert raw bioelectrical parameters into components of body mass. Furthermore, such data may no longer be representative over time because companies producing such software can alter the equations without notifying users [ 29 ]. While this approach is undoubtedly quicker than a systematic and accurate selection of the most appropriate equation among those available in the literature, does not guarantee a high-standard validity.…”