Predict your next investment

InBody company logo
HEALTHCARE | Medical Devices & Equipment / Patient Monitoring
inbodyusa.com

See what CB Insights has to offer

About InBody

InBody provides a line of BIA body composition analyzers. The InBody 570 body composition analyzer measures fat, muscle, and total body water. Total body water data can be divided into intracellular water and extracellular water, values important for understanding a user's fluid distribution in medical, wellness, and fitness contexts.

InBody Headquarter Location

13850 Cerritos Corporate Drive Unit C

Cerritos, California, 90703,

United States

Latest InBody News

Comparison of body composition assessment across body mass index categories by two multifrequency bioelectrical impedance analys...

Jan 22, 2021

Phenotyping in clinical nutrition Comparison of body composition assessment across body mass index categories by two multifrequency bioelectrical impedance analysis devices and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in clinical settings Background InBody-770 and SECA mBCA 515 are multifrequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) devices, which are commonly used in the clinic to assess fat-free mass (FFM) and body fat (BF). However, the accuracy between devices in clinical settings, across different body mass index (BMI) groups remains unclear. Methods Body composition for 226 participants (51% men, aged 18–80 years, BMI 18–56 kg/m²) was assessed by two commercial multifrequency BIA devices requiring standing position and using eight-contact electrodes, InBody 770 and SECA mBCA 515, and compared to results from dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Measurements were performed in a random order, after a 3 h fast and no prior exercise. Lin’s-concordance correlation and Bland–Altman analyses were used to compare between devices, and linear regression to assess accuracy in BF% across BMI groups. Results We found strong correlation between DXA results for study population BF% and those obtained by InBody (ρc = 0.922, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.902, 0.938) and DXA and SECA (ρc = 0.940, CI 0.923, 0.935), with 95% limits of agreements between 2.6 and −8.9, and 7.1 and −7.6, respectively. BF% assessment by SECA was similar to DXA (−0.3%, p = 0.267), and underestimated by InBody (−3.1%, p < 0.0001). InBody deviations were largest among normal weight people and decreased with increasing BMI group, while SECA measurements remained unaffected. Conclusions Both BIA devices agreed well with BF% assessment obtained by DXA. Unlike SECA, InBody underestimated BF% in both genders and was influenced by BMI categories. Therefore, in clinical settings, individual assessment of BF% should be taken with caution. $499.00 VAT will be added later in the checkout. Rent or Buy article from$8.99 Additional access options: Fig. 2: Blant–Altman analysis for BF% differences from DXA, for both InBody and SECA. Fig. 3: Distribution of absolute differences of BF% obtained by InBody ( ) and SECA ( ) from DXA. Fig. 4: Comparison of the absolute difference of BF% obtained by InBody (gray circles) and SECA (gray balls) from DXA, within different clinically used BMI categories. References 1. 2. Ward ZJ, Bleich SN, Cradock AL, Barrett JL, Giles CM, Flax C, et al. Projected U.S. state-level prevalence of adult obesity and severe obesity. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:2440–50. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa1909301 . 4. Cornier MA, Després JP, Davis N, Grossniklaus DA, Klein S, Lamarche B, et al. Assessing adiposity: a scientific statement from the american heart association. Circulation. 2011;124:1996–2019. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0b013e318233bc6a . 5. Bea JW, Thomson CA, Wertheim BC, Nicholas JS, Ernst KC, Hu C, et al. Risk of mortality according to body mass index and body composition among postmenopausal women. Am J Epidemiol. 2015;182:585–96. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwv103 . 6. Liberman K, Forti LN, Beyer I, Bautmans I. The effects of exercise on muscle strength, body composition, physical functioning and the inflammatory profile of older adults: a systematic review. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2017;20:30–53. https://doi.org/10.1097/MCO.0000000000000335 . 7. Deutz NEP, Ashurst I, Ballesteros MD, Bear DE, Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Genton L, et al. The underappreciated role of low muscle mass in the management of malnutrition. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2019;20:22–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2018.11.021 . 8. Garlini LM, Alves FD, Ceretta LB, Perry IS, Souza GC, Clausell NO. Phase angle and mortality: a systematic review. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2019;73:495–508. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-018-0159-1 . 9. Sergi G, De Rui M, Stubbs B, Veronese N, Manzato E. Measurement of lean body mass using bioelectrical impedance analysis: a consideration of the pros and cons. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2017;29:591–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-016-0622-6 . 10. Day K, Kwok A, Evans A, Mata F, Verdejo-Garcia A, Hart K, et al. Comparison of a bioelectrical impedance device against the reference method dual energy X-ray absorptiometry and anthropometry for the evaluation of body composition in adults. Nutrients. 2018;10:1469. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu10101469 . 11. Albanese CV, Diessel E, Genant HK. Clinical applications of body composition measurements using DXA. J Clin Densitom. 2003;6:75–85. https://doi.org/10.1385/JCD:6:2:75 . 12. Beaudart C, Bruyère O, Geerinck A, Hajaoui M, Scafoglieri A, Perkisas S, et al. Equation models developed with bioelectric impedance analysis tools to assess muscle mass: a systematic review. Clin Nutr Espen. 2020;35:47–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnesp.2019.09.012 . 13. Marra M, Sammarco R, De Lorenzo A, Iellamo F, Siervo M, Pietrobelli A, et al. Assessment of body composition in health and disease using bioelectrical impedance analysis (bia) and dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (dxa): a critical overview. Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2019;2019. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/3548284 . 14. Gába A, Kapuš O, Cuberek R, Botek M. Comparison of multi- and single-frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry for assessment of body composition in post-menopausal women: Effects of body mass index and accelerometer-determined physical activity. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2015;28:390–400. https://doi.org/10.1111/jhn.12257 . 15. Haverkort EB, Reijven PLM, Binnekade JM, De Van Der Schueren MAE, Earthman CP, Gouma DJ, et al. Bioelectrical impedance analysis to estimate body composition in surgical and oncological patients: a systematic review. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2015;69:3–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejcn.2014.203 . 16. Ramírez-Vélez R, Tordecilla-Sanders A, Correa-Bautista JE, González-Ruíz K, González-Jiménez E, Triana-Reina HR, et al. Validation of multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis versus dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry to measure body fat percentage in overweight/obese Colombian adults. Am J Hum Biol. 2018;30. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajhb.23071 . 17. Lee SY, Ahn S, Kim YJ, Ji MJ, Kim KM, Choi SH, et al. Comparison between dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry and bioelectrical impedance analyses for accuracy in measuring whole body muscle mass and appendicular skeletal muscle mass. Nutrients. 2018,10. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu10060738 . 18. Hume PA, Kerr DA, Ackland TR. Best practice protocols for physique assessment in sport. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2016;26:259–67. 19. Kyle UG, Bosaeus I, De Lorenzo AD, Deurenberg P, Elia M, Gómez JM, et al. Bioelectrical impedance analysis—part II: utilization in clinical practice. Clin Nutr. 2004;23:1430–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2004.09.012 . 20. Leahy S, O’Neill C, Sohun R, Jakeman P. A comparison of dual energy X-ray absorptiometry and bioelectrical impedance analysis to measure total and segmental body composition in healthy young adults. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2012;112:589–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-011-2010-4 . 21. Pateyjohns IR, Brinkworth GD, Buckley JD, Noakes M, Clifton PM. Comparison of three bioelectrical impedance methods with DXA in overweight and obese men. Obesity. 2006;14:2064–70. https://doi.org/10.1038/oby.2006.241 . 22. Vicente-Rodríguez G, Rey-López JP, Mesana MI, Poortvliet E, Ortega FB, Polito A, et al. Reliability and intermethod agreement for body fat assessment among two field and two laboratory methods in adolescents. Obesity. 2012;20:221–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/oby.2011.272 . 27. Heymsfield SB, Ebbeling CB, Zheng J, Pietrobelli A, Strauss BJ, Silva AM, et al. Multi-component molecular-level body composition reference methods: evolving concepts and future directions. Obes Rev. 2015;16:282–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12261 . 28. Lukaski HC. Body composition health and performance in exercise and sport. CRC Press. 2017; vol. 1; ISBN. p 13–23. 29. Ward LC. Bioelectrical impedance analysis for body composition assessment: reflections on accuracy, clinical utility, and standardisation. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2019;73:194–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-018-0335-3 . 30. Achamrah N, Colange G, Delay J, Rimbert A, Folope V, Petit A, et al. Comparison of body composition assessment by DXA and BIA according to the body mass index: a retrospective study on 3655 measures. PLoS ONE. 2018;13:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200465 .

Predict your next investment

The CB Insights tech market intelligence platform analyzes millions of data points on venture capital, startups, patents , partnerships and news mentions to help you see tomorrow's opportunities, today.

Expert Collections containing InBody

Expert Collections are analyst-curated lists that highlight the companies you need to know in the most important technology spaces.

InBody is included in 2 Expert Collections, including Conference Exhibitors.

C

Conference Exhibitors

5,302 items

M

Medical Devices

7,884 items

Companies developing medical devices (per the IMDRF's definition of "medical device"). Includes software, lab-developed tests (LDTs), and combination products. *Columns updated as regularly as possible.

InBody Patents

InBody has filed 13 patents.

The 3 most popular patent topics include:

  • Body shape
  • Neurophysiology
  • Nutrition
patents chart

Application Date

Grant Date

Title

Related Topics

Status

9/26/2019

11/30/2021

DOS games, Ship measurements, Amiga games, Windows-only games, MacOS games

Grant

00/00/0000

00/00/0000

Subscribe to see more

Subscribe to see more

Subscribe to see more

00/00/0000

00/00/0000

Subscribe to see more

Subscribe to see more

Subscribe to see more

00/00/0000

00/00/0000

Subscribe to see more

Subscribe to see more

Subscribe to see more

00/00/0000

00/00/0000

Subscribe to see more

Subscribe to see more

Subscribe to see more

Application Date

9/26/2019

00/00/0000

00/00/0000

00/00/0000

00/00/0000

Grant Date

11/30/2021

00/00/0000

00/00/0000

00/00/0000

00/00/0000

Title

Subscribe to see more

Subscribe to see more

Subscribe to see more

Subscribe to see more

Related Topics

DOS games, Ship measurements, Amiga games, Windows-only games, MacOS games

Subscribe to see more

Subscribe to see more

Subscribe to see more

Subscribe to see more

Status

Grant

Subscribe to see more

Subscribe to see more

Subscribe to see more

Subscribe to see more

InBody Web Traffic

Rank
Page Views per User (PVPU)
Page Views per Million (PVPM)
Reach per Million (RPM)
CBI Logo

InBody Rank

CB Insights uses Cookies

CBI websites generally use certain cookies to enable better interactions with our sites and services. Use of these cookies, which may be stored on your device, permits us to improve and customize your experience. You can read more about your cookie choices at our privacy policy here. By continuing to use this site you are consenting to these choices.