Validity and reliability of portable A-mode ultrasound in measuring body fat percentage: A systematic review with meta-analysis

The present Systematic Review with Meta-analysis study aimed to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Portable A-mode Ultrasound (P-US) for measuring body fat percentage (BF%). Only studies with participants of both genders which had assessed BF% using P-US compared to the reference standard...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:PloS one 2024-02, Vol.19 (2), p.e0292872
Main Authors: Ferreira, Luiz Fernando, Silva, Elirez Bezerra da, Bomfim, Alexander Barreiros Cardoso
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Air forces
Biology and Life Sciences
Body composition
Comparative analysis
Computer and Information Sciences
Engineering and Technology
Health aspects
Measurement
Medical examination
Medicine and Health Sciences
Military personnel
Mobile devices
Physical Sciences
Research and Analysis Methods
Science Policy
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c590t-d13fa1da3ad2d4248451ff93199d08c85327d760f8246e779ec63ce36d645ed03
container_end_page
container_issue 2
container_start_page e0292872
container_title PloS one
container_volume 19
creator Ferreira, Luiz Fernando
Silva, Elirez Bezerra da
Bomfim, Alexander Barreiros Cardoso
description The present Systematic Review with Meta-analysis study aimed to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Portable A-mode Ultrasound (P-US) for measuring body fat percentage (BF%). Only studies with participants of both genders which had assessed BF% using P-US compared to the reference standard were selected. Publications up until May 31, 2022 were searched in the MEDLINE, COCHRANE, Science Direct, Web of Science, LILACS, SciELO, PEDro, SPORT Discus, CINAHL and SCOPUS databases. QUADAS-2 was used to assess the risk of bias in the validity studies and QAREL was used for the methodological quality of reliability studies. The JAMOVI software program synthesized the results, from which the Pearson Correlation Coefficient (r) or the square root of the Multiple Linear Regression Determination Coefficient (R2) were extracted for the validity studies, and the Mean of Errors of the Bland-Altman Test (ME) and the Confidence Interval (95%CI) with Upper and Lower Limits for the reliability studies. A total of 13 studies were included, generating 26 results for the quantitative synthesis, 14 for validity and 12 for reliability. Regarding the validity results, a strong correlation was identified between the equipment (r = 0.870 [0.845-0.895], P
doi_str_mv 10.1371/journal.pone.0292872
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_8e688cb00170447db10125d26532b89a</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A781809161</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_8e688cb00170447db10125d26532b89a</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A781809161</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c590t-d13fa1da3ad2d4248451ff93199d08c85327d760f8246e779ec63ce36d645ed03</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkluL1DAYhoso7rr6D0QKguhFxxx6SL2RYfEwsLDgYW_D1-ZrJ0PajEm661z518044zIFLyQXOT3vmy_JmyTPKVlQXtG3Gzu5Ecxia0dcEFYzUbEHyTmtOctKRvjDk_FZ8sT7DSEFF2X5ODnjgnNCeH2e_LoBo5UOuxRGlTo0Ghpt9nPbpVvrAjQG02U2WIXpZIIDb6dI6jEdEPzk9NinjVW7tIOQbtG1OAbo8V26TP3OBxwg6DYa32q8S-90WEddgAxi6Tuv_dPkUQfG47Njf5F8__jh2-Xn7Or60-pyeZW1RU1CpijvgCrgoJjKWS7ygnZdzWldKyJaUXBWqaoknWB5iVVVY1vyFnmpyrxARfhFsjr4KgsbuXV6ALeTFrT8s2BdL8HFSg1KgaUQbUMIrUieV6qhhLJCsTIe0ogaotf7g9d2agZU-xs7MDPT-c6o17K3t5ISUTCWV9Hh9dHB2R8T-iAH7Vs0Bka0k5fxN_O6LknOIvrygPYQa9NjZ6Nlu8flshJUkJqWNFKLf1CxKRx0GxPS6bg-E7yZCSIT8GfoYfJerr5--X_2-mbOvjph1wgmrL01U9B29HMwP4Cts9477O7fjxK5D7g8BlzuAy6PAY-yF6dvfy_6m2j-G8RL-D8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2924996042</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Validity and reliability of portable A-mode ultrasound in measuring body fat percentage: A systematic review with meta-analysis</title><source>Open Access: PubMed Central</source><source>Publicly Available Content Database</source><creator>Ferreira, Luiz Fernando ; Silva, Elirez Bezerra da ; Bomfim, Alexander Barreiros Cardoso</creator><contributor>Cè, Emiliano</contributor><creatorcontrib>Ferreira, Luiz Fernando ; Silva, Elirez Bezerra da ; Bomfim, Alexander Barreiros Cardoso ; Cè, Emiliano</creatorcontrib><description>The present Systematic Review with Meta-analysis study aimed to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Portable A-mode Ultrasound (P-US) for measuring body fat percentage (BF%). Only studies with participants of both genders which had assessed BF% using P-US compared to the reference standard were selected. Publications up until May 31, 2022 were searched in the MEDLINE, COCHRANE, Science Direct, Web of Science, LILACS, SciELO, PEDro, SPORT Discus, CINAHL and SCOPUS databases. QUADAS-2 was used to assess the risk of bias in the validity studies and QAREL was used for the methodological quality of reliability studies. The JAMOVI software program synthesized the results, from which the Pearson Correlation Coefficient (r) or the square root of the Multiple Linear Regression Determination Coefficient (R2) were extracted for the validity studies, and the Mean of Errors of the Bland-Altman Test (ME) and the Confidence Interval (95%CI) with Upper and Lower Limits for the reliability studies. A total of 13 studies were included, generating 26 results for the quantitative synthesis, 14 for validity and 12 for reliability. Regarding the validity results, a strong correlation was identified between the equipment (r = 0.870 [0.845-0.895], P&lt;0.001), with moderate and true heterogeneity (I2 = 53.47%, P = 0.003), presenting publication bias. A small effect size was identified regarding the reliability results, overestimating the results due to chance between the devices (ME = 0.207 [-0.798-1.212], P = 0.686), with low heterogeneity also due to chance (I2 = 19.44%, P = 0.253), with no publication bias. All of the evaluated studies showed some violation of the instruments, confirming the high risk of bias and the low methodological quality. There is concern with heterogeneity for the validity results explained by the subgroups' analysis. The P-US associated with anthropometric perimeters satisfactorily measures the BF% with samples greater than 100 participants, and males. The results in the reliability assessment show high agreement and high variability, greatly expanding the confidence interval, which should be viewed with reservations. This review received financial support from the Brazilian Air Force. The study was registered with PROSPERO under the number CRD42020166617.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0292872</identifier><identifier>PMID: 38330039</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Air forces ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Body composition ; Comparative analysis ; Computer and Information Sciences ; Engineering and Technology ; Health aspects ; Measurement ; Medical examination ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Military personnel ; Mobile devices ; Physical Sciences ; Research and Analysis Methods ; Science Policy</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2024-02, Vol.19 (2), p.e0292872</ispartof><rights>Copyright: © 2024 Ferreira et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2024 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2024 Ferreira et al 2024 Ferreira et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c590t-d13fa1da3ad2d4248451ff93199d08c85327d760f8246e779ec63ce36d645ed03</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-1760-7090 ; 0000-0001-5918-3639</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10852247/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10852247/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,27924,27925,37013,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38330039$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Cè, Emiliano</contributor><creatorcontrib>Ferreira, Luiz Fernando</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Silva, Elirez Bezerra da</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bomfim, Alexander Barreiros Cardoso</creatorcontrib><title>Validity and reliability of portable A-mode ultrasound in measuring body fat percentage: A systematic review with meta-analysis</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>The present Systematic Review with Meta-analysis study aimed to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Portable A-mode Ultrasound (P-US) for measuring body fat percentage (BF%). Only studies with participants of both genders which had assessed BF% using P-US compared to the reference standard were selected. Publications up until May 31, 2022 were searched in the MEDLINE, COCHRANE, Science Direct, Web of Science, LILACS, SciELO, PEDro, SPORT Discus, CINAHL and SCOPUS databases. QUADAS-2 was used to assess the risk of bias in the validity studies and QAREL was used for the methodological quality of reliability studies. The JAMOVI software program synthesized the results, from which the Pearson Correlation Coefficient (r) or the square root of the Multiple Linear Regression Determination Coefficient (R2) were extracted for the validity studies, and the Mean of Errors of the Bland-Altman Test (ME) and the Confidence Interval (95%CI) with Upper and Lower Limits for the reliability studies. A total of 13 studies were included, generating 26 results for the quantitative synthesis, 14 for validity and 12 for reliability. Regarding the validity results, a strong correlation was identified between the equipment (r = 0.870 [0.845-0.895], P&lt;0.001), with moderate and true heterogeneity (I2 = 53.47%, P = 0.003), presenting publication bias. A small effect size was identified regarding the reliability results, overestimating the results due to chance between the devices (ME = 0.207 [-0.798-1.212], P = 0.686), with low heterogeneity also due to chance (I2 = 19.44%, P = 0.253), with no publication bias. All of the evaluated studies showed some violation of the instruments, confirming the high risk of bias and the low methodological quality. There is concern with heterogeneity for the validity results explained by the subgroups' analysis. The P-US associated with anthropometric perimeters satisfactorily measures the BF% with samples greater than 100 participants, and males. The results in the reliability assessment show high agreement and high variability, greatly expanding the confidence interval, which should be viewed with reservations. This review received financial support from the Brazilian Air Force. The study was registered with PROSPERO under the number CRD42020166617.</description><subject>Air forces</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Body composition</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Computer and Information Sciences</subject><subject>Engineering and Technology</subject><subject>Health aspects</subject><subject>Measurement</subject><subject>Medical examination</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Military personnel</subject><subject>Mobile devices</subject><subject>Physical Sciences</subject><subject>Research and Analysis Methods</subject><subject>Science Policy</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkluL1DAYhoso7rr6D0QKguhFxxx6SL2RYfEwsLDgYW_D1-ZrJ0PajEm661z518044zIFLyQXOT3vmy_JmyTPKVlQXtG3Gzu5Ecxia0dcEFYzUbEHyTmtOctKRvjDk_FZ8sT7DSEFF2X5ODnjgnNCeH2e_LoBo5UOuxRGlTo0Ghpt9nPbpVvrAjQG02U2WIXpZIIDb6dI6jEdEPzk9NinjVW7tIOQbtG1OAbo8V26TP3OBxwg6DYa32q8S-90WEddgAxi6Tuv_dPkUQfG47Njf5F8__jh2-Xn7Or60-pyeZW1RU1CpijvgCrgoJjKWS7ygnZdzWldKyJaUXBWqaoknWB5iVVVY1vyFnmpyrxARfhFsjr4KgsbuXV6ALeTFrT8s2BdL8HFSg1KgaUQbUMIrUieV6qhhLJCsTIe0ogaotf7g9d2agZU-xs7MDPT-c6o17K3t5ISUTCWV9Hh9dHB2R8T-iAH7Vs0Bka0k5fxN_O6LknOIvrygPYQa9NjZ6Nlu8flshJUkJqWNFKLf1CxKRx0GxPS6bg-E7yZCSIT8GfoYfJerr5--X_2-mbOvjph1wgmrL01U9B29HMwP4Cts9477O7fjxK5D7g8BlzuAy6PAY-yF6dvfy_6m2j-G8RL-D8</recordid><startdate>20240208</startdate><enddate>20240208</enddate><creator>Ferreira, Luiz Fernando</creator><creator>Silva, Elirez Bezerra da</creator><creator>Bomfim, Alexander Barreiros Cardoso</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1760-7090</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5918-3639</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20240208</creationdate><title>Validity and reliability of portable A-mode ultrasound in measuring body fat percentage: A systematic review with meta-analysis</title><author>Ferreira, Luiz Fernando ; Silva, Elirez Bezerra da ; Bomfim, Alexander Barreiros Cardoso</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c590t-d13fa1da3ad2d4248451ff93199d08c85327d760f8246e779ec63ce36d645ed03</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Air forces</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Body composition</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Computer and Information Sciences</topic><topic>Engineering and Technology</topic><topic>Health aspects</topic><topic>Measurement</topic><topic>Medical examination</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Military personnel</topic><topic>Mobile devices</topic><topic>Physical Sciences</topic><topic>Research and Analysis Methods</topic><topic>Science Policy</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ferreira, Luiz Fernando</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Silva, Elirez Bezerra da</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bomfim, Alexander Barreiros Cardoso</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ferreira, Luiz Fernando</au><au>Silva, Elirez Bezerra da</au><au>Bomfim, Alexander Barreiros Cardoso</au><au>Cè, Emiliano</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Validity and reliability of portable A-mode ultrasound in measuring body fat percentage: A systematic review with meta-analysis</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2024-02-08</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>19</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>e0292872</spage><pages>e0292872-</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>The present Systematic Review with Meta-analysis study aimed to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Portable A-mode Ultrasound (P-US) for measuring body fat percentage (BF%). Only studies with participants of both genders which had assessed BF% using P-US compared to the reference standard were selected. Publications up until May 31, 2022 were searched in the MEDLINE, COCHRANE, Science Direct, Web of Science, LILACS, SciELO, PEDro, SPORT Discus, CINAHL and SCOPUS databases. QUADAS-2 was used to assess the risk of bias in the validity studies and QAREL was used for the methodological quality of reliability studies. The JAMOVI software program synthesized the results, from which the Pearson Correlation Coefficient (r) or the square root of the Multiple Linear Regression Determination Coefficient (R2) were extracted for the validity studies, and the Mean of Errors of the Bland-Altman Test (ME) and the Confidence Interval (95%CI) with Upper and Lower Limits for the reliability studies. A total of 13 studies were included, generating 26 results for the quantitative synthesis, 14 for validity and 12 for reliability. Regarding the validity results, a strong correlation was identified between the equipment (r = 0.870 [0.845-0.895], P&lt;0.001), with moderate and true heterogeneity (I2 = 53.47%, P = 0.003), presenting publication bias. A small effect size was identified regarding the reliability results, overestimating the results due to chance between the devices (ME = 0.207 [-0.798-1.212], P = 0.686), with low heterogeneity also due to chance (I2 = 19.44%, P = 0.253), with no publication bias. All of the evaluated studies showed some violation of the instruments, confirming the high risk of bias and the low methodological quality. There is concern with heterogeneity for the validity results explained by the subgroups' analysis. The P-US associated with anthropometric perimeters satisfactorily measures the BF% with samples greater than 100 participants, and males. The results in the reliability assessment show high agreement and high variability, greatly expanding the confidence interval, which should be viewed with reservations. This review received financial support from the Brazilian Air Force. The study was registered with PROSPERO under the number CRD42020166617.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>38330039</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0292872</doi><tpages>e0292872</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1760-7090</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5918-3639</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1932-6203
ispartof PloS one, 2024-02, Vol.19 (2), p.e0292872
issn 1932-6203
1932-6203
language eng
recordid cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_8e688cb00170447db10125d26532b89a
source Open Access: PubMed Central; Publicly Available Content Database
subjects Air forces
Biology and Life Sciences
Body composition
Comparative analysis
Computer and Information Sciences
Engineering and Technology
Health aspects
Measurement
Medical examination
Medicine and Health Sciences
Military personnel
Mobile devices
Physical Sciences
Research and Analysis Methods
Science Policy
title Validity and reliability of portable A-mode ultrasound in measuring body fat percentage: A systematic review with meta-analysis
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T15%3A15%3A32IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Validity%20and%20reliability%20of%20portable%20A-mode%20ultrasound%20in%20measuring%20body%20fat%20percentage:%20A%20systematic%20review%20with%20meta-analysis&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Ferreira,%20Luiz%20Fernando&rft.date=2024-02-08&rft.volume=19&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=e0292872&rft.pages=e0292872-&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0292872&rft_dat=%3Cgale_doaj_%3EA781809161%3C/gale_doaj_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c590t-d13fa1da3ad2d4248451ff93199d08c85327d760f8246e779ec63ce36d645ed03%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2924996042&rft_id=info:pmid/38330039&rft_galeid=A781809161&rfr_iscdi=true