↓ Skip to main content

Estimation of body fluids with bioimpedance spectroscopy: state of the art methods and proposal of novel methods

Overview of attention for article published in Physiological Measurement, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Estimation of body fluids with bioimpedance spectroscopy: state of the art methods and proposal of novel methods
Published in
Physiological Measurement, September 2015
DOI 10.1088/0967-3334/36/10/2171
Pubmed ID
Authors

R Buendia, F Seoane, K Lindecrantz, I Bosaeus, R Gil-Pita, G Johannsson, L Ellegård, L C Ward

Abstract

Determination of body fluids is a useful common practice in determination of disease mechanisms and treatments. Bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS) methods are non-invasive, inexpensive and rapid alternatives to reference methods such as tracer dilution. However, they are indirect and their robustness and validity are unclear. In this article, state of the art methods are reviewed, their drawbacks identified and new methods are proposed. All methods were tested on a clinical database of patients receiving growth hormone replacement therapy. Results indicated that most BIS methods are similarly accurate (e.g.  <  0.5   ±   3.0% mean percentage difference for total body water) for estimation of body fluids. A new model for calculation is proposed that performs equally well for all fluid compartments (total body water, extra- and intracellular water). It is suggested that the main source of error in extracellular water estimation is due to anisotropy, in total body water estimation to the uncertainty associated with intracellular resistivity and in determination of intracellular water a combination of both.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Taiwan 1 2%
Unknown 44 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 26%
Student > Bachelor 6 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 13%
Researcher 5 11%
Other 3 7%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 10 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 11 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Sports and Recreations 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 13 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 March 2016.
All research outputs
#14,825,310
of 22,828,180 outputs
Outputs from Physiological Measurement
#1,038
of 1,385 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,264
of 268,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Physiological Measurement
#9
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,828,180 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,385 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 268,597 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.