To systematically identify and assess methods and protocols used to reduce technical and biological errors in published studies that have investigated reliability of dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) for assessing body composition.
Systematic review.
Systematic searches of five databases were used to identify studies of DXA reliability. Two independent reviewers used a modified critical appraisal tool to assess their methodological quality. Data was extracted and synthesised using a level of evidence approach. Further analysis was then undertaken of methods used to decrease DXA errors (technical and biological) and so enhance DXA reliability.
Twelve studies met eligibility criteria. Four of the articles were deemed high quality. Quality articles considered biological and technical errors when preparing participants for DXA scanning. The Nana positioning protocol was assessed to have a strong level of evidence. The studies providing this evidence indicated very high test-retest reliability (ICC 0.90-1.00 or less than 1% change in mean) of the Nana positioning protocol. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) positioning protocol was deemed to have a moderate level of evidence due to lack of high quality studies. However, the available studies found the NHANES positioning protocol had very high test-retest reliability. Evidence is limited and reported reliability has varied in papers where no specific positioning protocol was used or reported.
Due to the strong level of evidence of excellent test-retest reliability that supports use of the Nana positioning protocol, it is recommended as the first choice for clinicians when using DXA to assess body composition.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 09 October 2018.
All research outputs
#10,546,823
of 32,950,213 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport
#1,574
of 2,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#138,350
of 369,275 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport
#37
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,950,213 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,991 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.4. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 369,275 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
