Meta-Analyses & Systematic Reviews
Analysis of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in body composition assessment, from foundational research to recent military standards (Silva et al., 2013; Wells, 2014; Toomey et al., 2015).
Recent Systematic Reviews
Military Standards Review
Systematic review by Friedl et al. (2020) on body composition standards in the U.S. Military (DOI: 10.1093/milmed/usaa029):
- Review of military body composition standards
- Analysis of field method accuracy in military settings
- Evaluation of operational requirements
- Assessment of service-specific standards
Key Findings:
- Circumference methods validated for field use
- Standardization protocols established
- Service-specific validation requirements identified
Clinical Assessment Methods
Meta-analysis by Silva et al. (2013) on body composition assessment methods (DOI: 10.1038/ejcn.2013.124):
- Systematic review of assessment methods
- Comparison of field vs laboratory techniques
- Analysis of measurement error sources
- Clinical application guidelines
Key Findings:
- Field methods validated against reference standards
- Error ranges quantified for different methods
- Practical recommendations established
Foundational Reviews
Laboratory and Field Methods
Systematic review by Wagner & Heyward (1999) on body composition assessment techniques:
- Comprehensive method comparison
- Analysis of measurement errors
- Practical applications in field settings
Key Findings:
- Field methods validated for population monitoring
- Standardization protocols developed
- Error minimization strategies identified
Pediatric Applications
Systematic review by Wells (2014) on body composition reference data (DOI: 10.3945/an.113.005371):
- Analysis of pediatric assessment methods
- Reference data compilation
- Age-specific considerations
Key Findings:
- Age-specific reference data established
- Method selection criteria defined
- Growth monitoring protocols developed
Research Implications
Key Findings
- Field methods validated against laboratory standards (Silva et al., 2013)
- Population-specific equations improve accuracy (Wells, 2014)
- Standardized protocols essential for reliability (Wagner & Heyward, 1999)
- Military standards established for field use (Friedl et al., 2020)
References
- Silva, A.M., et al. (2013). “Body composition assessment methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis.” European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 67(11), 1097-1105. DOI: 10.1038/ejcn.2013.124
- Wells, J.C.K. (2014). “Toward body composition reference data for infants, children, and adolescents.” Advances in Nutrition, 5(3), 320S-329S. DOI: 10.3945/an.113.005371
- Wagner, D.R., & Heyward, V.H. (1999). “Techniques of body composition assessment: a review of laboratory and field methods.” Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 70(2), 135-149.
- Friedl, K.E., et al. (2020). “Body Composition Standards and Assessment in the U.S. Military.” Military Medicine, 185(9), e1472-e1479. DOI: 10.1093/milmed/usaa029