Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
190,332 studies31 sourcesUpdated 55 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BYJournal of functional morphology and kinesiology

Pairwise Agreement Among Field-Based Body-Fat Estimation Methods in Physically Active Adults: A Cross-Sectional Method-Comparison Study.

  • Raynier Zambrano-Villacres1,2
  • Kathy Elisabeth Verdugo Verdugo3
  • Washington David Guevara Castillo3
  • Nelly Andrade Mejia4
  • Jaen Cagua-Ordoñez5
  • Daniel Simancas-Racines5
5 affiliations
  1. 1Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud y Desarrollo Humano, Universidad ECOTEC, Km.13.5 Samborondón, Samborondón EC092302, Ecuador.
  2. 2Escuela de Posgrado, Doctorado en Ciencias de la Salud, Instituto Universitario Italiano de Rosario (IUNIR), Rosario S2000CTT, Argentina.
  3. 3Escuela de Nutriología, Facultad de Ciencias Médicas, de la Salud y la Vida, Universidad Internacional del Ecuador, Quito 170411, Ecuador.
  4. 4Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Espíritu Santo, Samborondón 0901952, Ecuador.
  5. 5Center for Evidence Ecosystems, Implementation Science, and Decision-Making (CIDES), Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud y Bienestar Humano, Universidad Tecnológica Indoamérica, Ambato 180150, Ecuador.
Read full textPDFDOICite

Abstract

Background: Field-based body-fat estimates may differ substantially across methods, but similarity in group averages does not necessarily indicate close individual-level agreement. This study characterized pairwise numerical agreement among four field-based body-fat estimation methods without designating a criterion reference. Methods: Forty physically active adults (19 women and 21 men) underwent same-session assessment using archived Carter-derived and Faulkner-derived anthropometric estimates, single-frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA; Omron HBF-514C), and multifrequency BIA (InBody 120). Agreement was evaluated using paired differences, 95% limits of agreement (LoA), bootstrap confidence intervals, and analyses of non-constant mean and variance structures. Difference-on-paired-mean patterns were additionally examined considering mathematical coupling and unequal method variances. Results: Carter-derived estimates averaged 4.16 percentage points (pp) lower than Faulkner-derived estimates, whereas Omron estimates averaged 5.34 pp higher than InBody estimates. Carter-Faulkner showed an approximately stable mean difference but increasing dispersion across the measurement range, supporting level-specific LoA. Faulkner-InBody showed a small mean difference (-1.48 pp) despite wide global LoA (-12.91 to 9.94 pp). Anthropometry-BIA comparisons showed negative difference-on-paired-mean slopes (-0.58 to -0.72); however, these patterns were algebraically consistent with mathematical coupling and unequal method variances and were not interpreted as independent evidence of adiposity-level effects. Conclusions: The methods showed systematic pairwise differences and substantial individual-level disagreement. Because no criterion method, replicate measurements, or prespecified application-specific acceptability threshold was available, the findings establish neither accuracy, superiority, nor interchangeability among the methods.

Related

  1. Comparison of ultrasound accuracy versus clinical fetal weight estimation – a retrospective cross-sectional study
    Agnieszka A. Strojny, Stepan Feduniw, Arkadiusz Baran +7
    Ginekologia PolskaPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-NDFull textObstetrics, gynaecology & paediatricsDOAJ
  2. Agreement between a wrist-worn solar-powered watch and a chest-mounted light logger in quantifying daily time above 1500 lx in children: a pilot field comparison study
    Tzu-Jung Huang, Pei-Chang Wu
    BMC Public HealthPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-ND 4.0Epidemiology & public healthCrossref
  3. The amyloid packing difference: A pairwise comparison metric for amyloid structures
    Sjors H. W. Scheres
    StructurePeer-reviewedCC BY8 citedPhysiologyOpenAlex
  4. Determining the cognitive function differences between different types of physically active students : Cross-sectional analysis
    Abdullah Al Mutairi, Mohammed Al-Ramadan, Mahdi I. Abo Qarin +5
    MedicinePeer-reviewedCC BY-NCFull textGeneral medicineEurope PMC
  5. Agreement Between Venous and Capillary Haemoglobin Concentrations in a High-Burden Urban Indian Setting: A Cross-Sectional Analysis
    Nandini Sharma, Saurav Basu, Mongjam Meghachandra Singh +3
    Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)Peer-reviewedCC BYFull textGeneral medicineEurope PMC

Cite

BibTeXRIS
BibTeX
@article{zambranovillacres2026pairwise,
  title = {{Pairwise Agreement Among Field-Based Body-Fat Estimation Methods in Physically Active Adults: A Cross-Sectional Method-Comparison Study.}},
  author = {Raynier Zambrano-Villacres and Kathy Elisabeth Verdugo Verdugo and Washington David Guevara Castillo and Nelly Andrade Mejia and Jaen Cagua-Ordoñez and Daniel Simancas-Racines},
  journal = {Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  doi = {10.3390/jfmk11040401},
  url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42924680},
  note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Pairwise Agreement Among Field-Based Body-Fat Estimation Methods in Physically Active Adults: A Cross-Sectional Method-Comparison Study.
AU  - Raynier Zambrano-Villacres
AU  - Kathy Elisabeth Verdugo Verdugo
AU  - Washington David Guevara Castillo
AU  - Nelly Andrade Mejia
AU  - Jaen Cagua-Ordoñez
AU  - Daniel Simancas-Racines
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/10/02
JO  - Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology
DO  - 10.3390/jfmk11040401
UR  - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42924680
AB  - Background: Field-based body-fat estimates may differ substantially across methods, but similarity in group averages does not necessarily indicate close individual-level agreement. This study characterized pairwise numerical agreement among four field-based body-fat estimation methods without designating a criterion reference. Methods: Forty physically active adults (19 women and 21 men) underwent same-session assessment using archived Carter-derived and Faulkner-derived anthropometric estimates, single-frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA; Omron HBF-514C), and multifrequency BIA (InBody 120). Agreement was evaluated using paired differences, 95% limits of agreement (LoA), bootstrap confidence intervals, and analyses of non-constant mean and variance structures. Difference-on-paired-mean patterns were additionally examined considering mathematical coupling and unequal method variances. Results: Carter-derived estimates averaged 4.16 percentage points (pp) lower than Faulkner-derived estimates, whereas Omron estimates averaged 5.34 pp higher than InBody estimates. Carter-Faulkner showed an approximately stable mean difference but increasing dispersion across the measurement range, supporting level-specific LoA. Faulkner-InBody showed a small mean difference (-1.48 pp) despite wide global LoA (-12.91 to 9.94 pp). Anthropometry-BIA comparisons showed negative difference-on-paired-mean slopes (-0.58 to -0.72); however, these patterns were algebraically consistent with mathematical coupling and unequal method variances and were not interpreted as independent evidence of adiposity-level effects. Conclusions: The methods showed systematic pairwise differences and substantial individual-level disagreement. Because no criterion method, replicate measurements, or prespecified application-specific acceptability threshold was available, the findings establish neither accuracy, superiority, nor interchangeability among the methods.
SN  - 2411-5142
ER  -