↓ Skip to main content

Is bioelectrical impedance accurate for use in large epidemiological studies?

Overview of attention for article published in Nutrition Journal, September 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

4 news outlets
1 tweeter
1 Facebook page
2 Wikipedia pages
2 Google+ users
2 video uploaders


209 Dimensions

Readers on

561 Mendeley
1 CiteULike
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.
Is bioelectrical impedance accurate for use in large epidemiological studies?
Published in
Nutrition Journal, September 2008
DOI 10.1186/1475-2891-7-26
Pubmed ID

Mahshid Dehghan, Anwar T Merchant


Percentage of body fat is strongly associated with the risk of several chronic diseases but its accurate measurement is difficult. Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) is a relatively simple, quick and non-invasive technique, to measure body composition. It measures body fat accurately in controlled clinical conditions but its performance in the field is inconsistent. In large epidemiologic studies simpler surrogate techniques such as body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, and waist-hip ratio are frequently used instead of BIA to measure body fatness. We reviewed the rationale, theory, and technique of recently developed systems such as foot (or hand)-to-foot BIA measurement, and the elements that could influence its results in large epidemiologic studies. BIA results are influenced by factors such as the environment, ethnicity, phase of menstrual cycle, and underlying medical conditions. We concluded that BIA measurements validated for specific ethnic groups, populations and conditions can accurately measure body fat in those populations, but not others and suggest that for large epidemiological studies with diverse populations BIA may not be the appropriate choice for body composition measurement unless specific calibration equations are developed for different groups participating in the study.

Twitter Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 561 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 3 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Colombia 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Portugal 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
India 2 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Nigeria 1 <1%
Other 3 <1%
Unknown 541 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 149 27%
Student > Master 101 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 83 15%
Researcher 42 7%
Student > Postgraduate 33 6%
Other 83 15%
Unknown 70 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 159 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 74 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 66 12%
Sports and Recreations 62 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 30 5%
Other 78 14%
Unknown 92 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 42. 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 12 September 2019.
All research outputs
of 15,835,226 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition Journal
of 1,205 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 289,177 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition Journal
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,835,226 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,205 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 289,177 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them