4.5 Review

Bioelectrical impedance vector analysis (BIVA) for the assessment of two-compartment body composition

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION
Volume 68, Issue 11, Pages 1234-1240

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/ejcn.2014.170

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. University of Cagliari
  2. 'Regione Autonoma della Sardegna' through a research grant on fundings of the Project PO Sardegna FSE, Promozione della ricerca scientifica e dell'innovazione tecnologica in Sardegna [L.R.7/2007]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This review is directed to define the efficacy of bioelectrical impedance vector analysis (BIVA) for assessing two-compartment body composition. A systematic literature review using MEDLINE database up to 12 February 2014 was performed. The list of papers citing the first description of BIVA, obtained from SCOPUS, and the reference lists of included studies were also searched. Selection criteria included studies comparing the results of BIVA with those of other techniques, and studies analyzing bioelectrical vectors of obese, athletic, cachectic and lean individuals. Thirty articles met the inclusion criteria. The ability of classic BIVA for assessing two-compartment body composition has been mainly evaluated by means of indirect techniques, such as anthropometry and bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA). Classic BIVA showed a high agreement with body mass index, that can be interpreted in relation to the greater body mass of obese and athletic individuals, whereas the comparison with BIA showed less consistent results, especially in diseased individuals. When a reference method was used, classic BIVA failed to accurately recognize FM% variations, whereas specific BIVA furnished good results. Specific BIVA is a promising alternative to classic BIVA for assessing two-compartment body composition, with potential application in nutritional, sport and geriatric medicine.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available