These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Data analysis in multiple-frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis.
    Author: Cornish BH, Ward LC.
    Journal: Physiol Meas; 1998 May; 19(2):275-83. PubMed ID: 9626691.
    Abstract:
    The performance of three analytical methods for multiple-frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (MFBIA) data was assessed. The methods were the established method of Cole and Cole, the newly proposed method of Siconolfi and co-workers and a modification of this procedure. Method performance was assessed from the adequacy of the curve fitting techniques, as judged by the correlation coefficient and standard error of the estimate, and the accuracy of the different methods in determining the theoretical values of impedance parameters describing a set of model electrical circuits. The experimental data were well fitted by all curve-fitting procedures (r = 0.9 with SEE 0.3 to 3.5% or better for most circuit-procedure combinations). Cole-Cole modelling provided the most accurate estimates of circuit impedance values, generally within 1-2% of the theoretical values, followed by the Siconolfi procedure using a sixth-order polynomial regression (1-6% variation). None of the methods, however, accurately estimated circuit parameters when the measured impedances were low (< 20 omega) reflecting the electronic limits of the impedance meter used. These data suggest that Cole-Cole modelling remains the preferred method for the analysis of MFBIA data.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]