Table 3.

Comparison of total body water assessed by multiple frequency bioimpedance spectroscopy and anthropomorphic-based equations and bioimpedance spectroscopy (MF-BIS)

Bias l95% CIT Statr2
    Watson et al.0.670.22 to 1.122.92<0.0010.77<0.001
    Hume and Weyers1.731.29 to 2.187.63<0.0010.79<0.001
    J-A1.070.61 to 1.524.63<0.0010.77<0.001
    J-G0.900.47 to 1.334.13<0.0010.81<0.001
    Lee et al.1.130.67 to 1.594.81<0.0010.79<0.001
    Chumlea et al.1.931.46 to 2.417.99<0.0010.77<0.001
    Chertow et al.4.453.99 to 4.919.34<0.0010.81<0.001
    HEMO−5.79−6.28 to −5.3−23.3<0.0010.76<0.001
South Asian
    Watson et al.3.563.02 to 4.113.06<0.0010.72<0.001
    Hume and Weyers4.053.47 to 4.6213.97<0.0010.71<0.001
    J-A2.682.08 to 3.278.89<0.0010.67<0.001
    J-G3.352.8 to 3.9111.9<0.0010.72<0.001
    Lee et al.3.112.53 to 3.6910.56<0.0010.71<0.001
    Chumlea et al.4.734.12 to 5.3315.47<0.0010.71<0.001
    Chertow et al.6.70.11 to 7.2822.57<0.0010.82<0.001
    HEMO−2.71−3.49 to −1.94−6.94<0.0010.58<0.001
    Watson et al.−0.73−1.86 to 0.4−<0.001
    Hume and Weyers0.18−0.88 to 1.230.7390.740.77<0.001
    J-A0.3−0.76 to 1.360.570.570.79<0.001
    J-G−0.43−1.47 to 0.61−0.830.410.77<0.001
    Lee et al.−0.54−1.6 to 0.5−1.040.300.77<0.001
    Chumlea et al.0.09−1.0 to<0.001
    Chertow et al.2.91.86 to 3.955.55<0.0010.77<0.001
    HEMO−4.94−5.36 to −4.52−23.15<0.0010.64<0.001
  • Watson et al. (7), Johansson et al. equation for all patients (J-A) and adjusted for gender (J-G) (16), Hume and Weyers (7), Lee et al. (10), Chumlea et al. (11), Chertow et al. (13), and HEMO (17) equations were used. Bias 1, Bland Altman bias (anthropomorphic total body water-MF-BIS); 95% CI, 95% confidence interval for bias; r2, Pearson correlation.