2011
DOI: 10.2478/v10038-010-0027-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of Accuracy of the Body Composition Measurements by the BIA Method

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
9
0
2

Year Published

2014
2014
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
2
9
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Maximum relative repeatability error for measurements of skinfolds expressed by the variability index ranges from 1.6% to 3.0% depending on the skinfold site. The maximum values of the relative repeatability errors are consistent with the results discussed in a study by Kutáč and Gajda (2011). BMI and WHR (waist/hip ratio) indexes were calculated and girths corrected by skinfolds.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 88%
“…Maximum relative repeatability error for measurements of skinfolds expressed by the variability index ranges from 1.6% to 3.0% depending on the skinfold site. The maximum values of the relative repeatability errors are consistent with the results discussed in a study by Kutáč and Gajda (2011). BMI and WHR (waist/hip ratio) indexes were calculated and girths corrected by skinfolds.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 88%
“…TE values measured in the present study with the analyzer. Tanita BC 418 MA corresponds to those presented in the study which focused on the issue and size of TE at the identical type of analyzer [ 39 , 40 ]; TE values calculated for the analyzers from Nutriguard are even lower. TE values calculated from the measurements between the individual days in a week were higher.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…The overall decrease in the proportion of BF by 1.8% in the case of the Nutriguard analyser (A1) and by 2.3% for the Tanita analyser (A2) were considered significant, not only because statistical and material significance were confirmed but also because these changes exceeded the values of the typical error of measurement (TE) for the devices. For the bioimpedance analysers, the TE reference values are between 0.38 and 0.83 for BF, depending on the type of analyser used (Kutáč & Gajda, 2011;Macfarlane, 2007). Therefore these differences were not the result of the analysers' measurement error, but possibly related to the conditioning program.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%