A comparison of four commercial systems used to measure whole-body electrical impedance
- 1 November 1993
- journal article
- research article
- Published by IOP Publishing in Physiological Measurement
- Vol. 14 (4) , 473-478
- https://doi.org/10.1088/0967-3334/14/4/008
Abstract
Four commercial whole-body impedance measuring systems (Holtain, RJL, Bodystat and EZcomp) were compared on two separate occasions for a group of normal subjects. The first set of readings in 21 subjects demonstrated a significant difference of approximately 6% between the Holtain measurement and the higher reading from the Bodystat or RJL systems. The differences between the RJL and Bodystat readings were much less (mean difference 0.6%). Similar differences between the Holtain and EZcomp or Bodystat measurements were demonstrated on a second occasion for a group of 11 subjects. Given that these devices operate by supplying a constant current, the differences may be explained by the results from a series of measurements on a whole-body resistance simulator in which it appears that for skin contact resistance > 200 Omega the Holtain device is unable to sustain a constant current and therefore records a lower impedance than the true value.Keywords
This publication has 6 references indexed in Scilit:
- Tetrapolar electrode system for measuring physiological events by impedanceMedical & Biological Engineering & Computing, 1992
- Lean body mass estimation by bioelectrical impedance analysis: a four-site cross-validation studyThe American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1988
- Methods for the assessment of human body composition: traditional and newThe American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1987
- Validation of tetrapolar bioelectrical impedance method to assess human body compositionJournal of Applied Physiology, 1986
- Applied potential tomographyJournal of Physics E: Scientific Instruments, 1984
- Nutritional assessment: Whole body impedance and body fluid compartmentsNutrition and Cancer, 1980