↓ Skip to main content

Predictive models of newborn body composition: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Revista Paulista de Pediatria, March 2023
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
7 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
Predictive models of newborn body composition: a systematic review
Published in
Revista Paulista de Pediatria, March 2023
DOI 10.1590/1984-0462/2023/41/2020365
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elissa de Oliveira Couto, Daniele Marano, Yasmin Notarbartolo di Villarosa do Amaral, Maria Elisabeth Lopes Moreira

Abstract

To analyze the prediction models of fat-free mass and fat mass of neonates who had air displacement plethysmography as a reference test. A systematic review of studies identified in the PubMed, Virtual Health Library (BVS), SciELO, and ScienceDirect databases was carried out. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist was used for inclusion of studies, the Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) report was used to select only predictive models studies, and the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) was used to assess the risk of bias in the models. This study is registered in PROSPERO with identification CRD42020175048. Five hundred and three studies were found during the searches, and only four papers (six models) were eligible. Most studies (three) used the sum of different skinfolds to predict neonatal body fat and all presented weight as the variable with the highest contribution to predicting neonatal body composition. Two models that used skinfolds showed high coefficients of determination and explained, significantly, 81% of the body fat measured by air displacement plethysmography, while the models using bioimpedance did not find a significant correlation between the impedance index and the fat-free mass. The few studies found on this topic had numerous methodological differences. However, the subscapular skinfold was a strong predictor of neonatal body fat in three studies. It is noteworthy that such model validation studies should be carried out in the future, allowing them to be subsequently applied to the population. The development of these models with low-cost tools will contribute to better nutritional monitoring of children and could prevent complications in adulthood.

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 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 7 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 1 14%
Lecturer 1 14%
Unknown 5 71%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 1 14%
Sports and Recreations 1 14%
Unknown 5 71%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 16 March 2023.
All research outputs
#17,301,727
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Revista Paulista de Pediatria
#193
of 511 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#250,164
of 425,551 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista Paulista de Pediatria
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 511 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
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 425,551 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.