Table 4.
Description of the studies included in the review.
| Reference | Country | Year | Average Age | BMI (kg/m2) | Sample No. (n) | Objective | Type of Study |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bragança et al., 2018 [4] | United Kingdom | 2018 | 24.03 | 22.62 | 37 (17 F 1/20 M 2) | To compare two anthropometric data collection techniques, i.e., manual methods and a Kinect-based 3D body scanner, to understand which provides more accurate and reliable results. | Cross-sectional study |
| Adler et al., 2017 [10] | Germany | 2017 | 18–79 | 26.29 | 37 (17 F/20 M) | To investigate the longer-term validity and reliability of 3DPS-based body volume and %body fat over a period of approximately four weeks for application in epidemiological studies in the general adult population. | Cross-sectional study |
| Bourgeois et al., 2017 [11] | USA | 2017 | 44 | 27.25 | 113 (73 F/40 M) | Critically evaluate three of these newer optical devices that differ in image acquisition and data processing technology, comparing body size and shape results with those obtained by reference methods. | Cross-sectional study |
| Medina-Inojosa et al., 2016 [12] | USA | 2016 | 41.9 | 25.9 | 83 (40 F/43 M) | To evaluate the reliability and reproducibility of a 3D scanner in the measurement of anthropometric parameters in central obesity. | Cross-sectional study |
| Ng et al., 2016 [13] | USA | 2016 | 44.45 | 26.4 | 37 (19 F/18 M) | Validate direct and derived anthropometrics of body composition from 3D scans of the whole body surface against criterion methods. | Cross-sectional study |
| Ng et al., 2019 [14] | USA | 2019 | 44.8 | 27.2 | 407 (230 F/177 M) | Quantify the test-retest accuracy of 3DO PCA (principal component analysis) body composition estimates compared to DXA. | Cross-sectional study |
| Brooke-Wavell et al., 1994 [15] | United Kingdom | 2009 | 27.9 | -3 | 10 (5 F/5 M) | Compare the reliability and repeatability of LASS scanner and anthropometrics. | Cross-sectional study |
| Weiss et al., 2009 [16] | USA | 2009 | 42.93 | - | 30 (28 F/2 M) | Compare the accuracy and reproducibility of manual measurements vs. 3D photographic measurements of the abdomen and thigh circumference. | Cross-sectional study |
| Pepper et al., 2010 [17] | USA | 2010 | 29.64 | 25.57 | 70 F | Evaluate the reliability and validity of a 3D laser body scanner for estimating waist and hip circumferences and the waist-to-hip ratio. | Cross-sectional study |
| Harbin et al., 2017 [18] | USA | 2017 | 22.1 | 24.5 | 265 (146 F/119 M) | Compare and validate the accuracy of a 3D infrared body scanner for determining body composition against hydrostatic weighing (HW), bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) and anthropometry (skinfold thickness and circumferences). | Cross-sectional study |
| Bragança et al., 2017 [3] | USA | 2017 | 24.03 | 22.6 | 37 (17 F/20 M) | Compare anthropometric data collected using a Kinect body imaging system with data collected using traditional manual methods. | Cross-sectional study |
| Vonk & Daanen, 2015 [19] | Netherlands | 2015 | 21.5 | 21.43 | 156 (27 F/219 M) | Evaluate the repeatability and validity of the SizeStream scanner and Poikos modeling system by scanning a large number of subjects multiple times. | Cross-sectional study |
| Tinsley et al., 2019 [20] | USA | 2019 | 33.6 | 25.1 | 179 (103 F/76 M) | Quantify the test-retest accuracy (reproducibility) of four commercially available 3DO scanners for anthropometrics and examine the validity of total and regional body volume estimates produced by these scanners compared to reference methods. | Cross-sectional study |
| Ladouceur et al., 2017 [21] | Canada | 2017 | - | - | 20 (9 F/11 M) | Develop a systematic method to compare manual and digital anthropometrics and validate a commercial 3D laser scanner for anthropometric measurements. | Cross-sectional study |
| Ramos-Jiménez et al., 2018 [22] | Mexico | 2018 | 21.7 | 24.86 | 285 (140 F/145 M) | Validate a 3D image digitizer (TC2-18) to determine body dimensions in a fast and reliable manner. | Cross-sectional study |
| Kuehnapfel et al., 2016 [23] | Germany | 2016 | - | - | 108 (69 F/39 M) | Compare 3D laser-based body scanners with classical manual anthropometrics (CA) with respect to feasibility, reliability and validity. | Cross-sectional study |
| Koepke et al., 2017 [24] | Switzerland | 2017 | 24.55 | 22.97 | 123 M | Compare scanning and manual anthropometrics techniques based on five selected body measurements. | Cross-sectional study |
| Lu & Wang et al., 2010 [25] | China | 2010 | - | - | 263 (91 F/172 M) | To evaluate scanned measurements in terms of accuracy and precision. | Cross-sectional study |
1 Female. 2 Male. (In reference to the sex of the participants). 3 Information not reported in the paper.