ArticleEating and weight disorders : EWD2022
Prediction of body fat in adolescents: validity of the methods relative fat mass, body adiposity index and body fat index.
Article in Eating and weight disorders : EWD, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Validity of non-traditional measures of obesity compared to total body fat across the life course: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2025Pooled it
- The Associations of Anthropometric Indices With Stages and Mortality in Cardiovascular-Kidney-Metabolic Syndrome: Insights From NHANES.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Bridging the gap in obesity research: A consensus statement from the European Society for Clinical Investigation.European journal of clinical investigation · 2025Review
- Performance of Body Adiposity Index and Relative Fat Mass in Predicting Bioelectric Impedance Analysis-Derived Body Fat Percentage: A Cross-Sectional Study among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in the Ho Municipality, Ghana.BioMed research international · 2023Article
- Development and Validation of a Novel Waist Girth-Based Equation to Estimate Fat Mass in Young Colombian Elite Athletes (F20Nutrients · 2022Article
- Computed tomography analysis of fascial space involvement demonstrates correlations with laboratory tests, length of hospital stays and admission to the intensive care unit in odontogenic infections.Brazilian journal of otorhinolaryngologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo verify the validity of anthropometric methods body adiposity index (BAI), relative fat mass (RFM) and body fat index (BFI) to estimate body fat percentage (%BF) in adolescents.
methodsA cross-sectional study was carried out with 420 Brazilian adolescents aged 15-19 years, stratified by age (< 18 years, n = 356; ≥ 18 years, n = 64) and sex (boys, n = 216; girls, n = 204). The Anthropometric measurements height, body weight, hip circumference and waist circumference were collected to calculate the %BF by BAI, RFM, BFI methods. Subsequently, %BF was measured by dual emission X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), adopted as a reference method. In the statistical analysis of the data, the Pearson correlation test and the paired t test between %BF obtained by the equations and by the DXA were performed. The method validation criterion was that 68% of individuals should be within an acceptable error range of ± 3.5% of BF and Cohen's Kappa index ≥ 0.61. Additionally, the Bland-Altman graphical analysis was performed.
resultsAll methods showed a high correlation with DXA. For the Kappa index, only the RFM reached the criterion in the total sample (0.67) and in the sample < 18 years (0.68). None of the methods reached the criterion of 68% of the sample within the error range of ± 3.5% of BF.
conclusionThe BAI, RFM and BFI equations were not valid for predicting BF in the studied sample according to the criteria adopted regardless of sex or age. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V, cross-sectional descriptive study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.