ReviewAmerican journal of nephrology2025
Fluid Volume Estimation by Bioimpedance: Methodological Caveats and Clinical Interpretation.
Review in American journal of nephrology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multimodal Diagnostic Ultrasound for Congestion, Perfusion, and Ultrafiltration Tolerance in Maintenance Hemodialysis: A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Associations between nutrition knowledge and anthropometric indicators in a pre-professional health population: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Malnutrition and fluid overload as independent predictors of mortality in dialysis patients: A multicenter cohort study in Colombia.Science progressArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFluid monitoring is critical for patients on maintenance hemodialysis. Bioimpedance enables estimation of fluid volumes from measures of electrical tissue properties. However, empirical equations are needed to approximate key variables, especially in wrist-to-ankle bioimpedance measurements, introducing potential errors. SUMMARY: Here, we provide a technical overview of electrical impedance, derivation of fluid volumes from different bioimpedance methods and electrode setups, as well as sources of error including the assumption of constant resistivity, constant body temperature, and vendor-specific equations to derive fluid overload. We summarize the validity of bioimpedance methods in hemodialysis and conclude that irrespective of error sources reported above, segmental bioimpedance, where limbs and the trunk are measured separately, may be more accurate compared to the convenient wrist-to-ankle measurement. We argue that insufficient correction for variable body shape in wrist-to-ankle measurements jeopardizes this methodology, reporting here our analyses by means of theory and data simulation, where we found that conventional wrist-to-ankle bioimpedance underestimated extracellular fluid volume with increasing body fat percentage. The error could be reduced by using subject-specific body shape correction based on high-resolution 3D models. Finally, we attempt to provide guidance for identifying and mitigating common issues of wrist-to-ankle bioimpedance. KEY MESSAGES: While more convenient than segmental measurements, wrist-to-ankle bioimpedance may underestimate fluid volumes in obesity when body shape is not properly accounted for. Novel techniques, including smartphone-based 3D scans of the body, could potentially facilitate individualizing body shape correction to improve fluid volume estimates.
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.