Fundamentals, Recent Advances, and Future Challenges in Bioimpedance Devices for Healthcare Applications

Table 3

Comparison of bland Altman analysis results in studies of body composition.

Study	Sample size	Measurement	Reference method	Bioimpedance method	Bioimpedance device	Differences Mean value	95% CoIn
[211]	49 hemodialysis patients	TBW (L)	D2O	SFBIA	Xitron 4200, Xitron Technologies, USA	-2.1	-5.3 to 1.1
		ICW (L)	TBK			0.5	-1.5 to 2.4
		ECW (L)	BrD			-4.4	-6.2 to -2.6
		TBW (L)	D2O	BIS		1.9	-1.3 to 5.1
		ICW (L)	TBK			0.3	-1.7 to 2.2
		ECW (L)	BrD			-0.2	-1.9 to 1.6
[193]	94 patients on growth hormone replacement therapy	TBW (L)	TrD	SFBIA [208]	Body Scout, Fresenius Medical Care, Germany	2.3	-5.8 to 10.4
				SFBIA [189]		-0.9	-9.3 to 7.5
				SFBIA [209]		-2.7	-7.5 to 2.1
				SFBIA [188]		-2.1	-7.2 to 3
				BIS [154]		0.6	-4.2 to 5.4
				BIS [63]		0.9	-4.1 to 5.8
[212]	130 women with a normal weight to the third degree of obesity	Fat mass (kg)	DEXA	SFBIA	Bodystat 1500, Bodystat, Isle of Man	-0.7	-9.4 to 8
					Omron BF 300, Omron, Japan	-0.6	-7.2 to 6
					Tanita TBF 410 GS, Tanita, Japan	0.6	-7.3 to 8.5
[213]	120 pre-dialysis patients	Body fat (kg)	DEXA	BIS	Body Composition Monitor, Fresenius Medical Care, Germany	3.1	-6.8 to 13
		FFM (kg)				-2.8	-12 to 6.5
[204]	84 postmenopausal women	Fat mass (kg)	DEXA	MFBIA	BIA-ACC, BIOTEKNA, Italy	3.5	1.5 to 8.6
		Fat mass (%)				5.3	-2.3 to 12.8
		FFM (kg)				-2.9	-11.1 to 5.4
		FFM (%)				-5.2	-12.5 to 2.1
[207]	122 adult hemodialysis patients	Fat mass (kg)	DEXA	BIS	Body Composition Monitor, Fresenius Medical Care, Germany	0.3	-5.5 to 6.2
[210]	30 healthy adults	FFM (kg)	DEXA	SFBIA	RJL Systems Quantum IV, RJL Systems, USA	-3.1	-9.3 to 2.6
		Fat mass (kg)				4.2	-5 to 12.7
[214]	31 healthy women	Fat mass (%)	DEXA	SFBIA	BIA 101, Akern, Italy	0.5	-1.2 to 1.7
[206]	53 adult hemodialysis patients	Bone mineral (kg)	DEXA	SFBIA	InBody S10, InBody, Korea	1.9	0.9 to 2.9
		Fat mass (kg)				-6.5	-15 to 2
		FFM (kg)				4.2	-3 to 11.5