Data Sheet 1_InBody bioelectrical impedance research in clinical nutrition: a bibliometric analysis of trends, applications, and evidence gaps, 2002–2025.zip

Index Expanded within the Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection using the search term “InBody.” Records were analyzed using Bibliometrix and VOSviewer. Analyses included descriptive bibliometrics, country and institutional productivity, journal productivity, citation impact, author-keyword co-occurrence, trend-topic analysis, and logistic growth modeling. Cross-database validation was conducted using Scopus and PubMed.</p>Results<p>The final WoS corpus included 406 articles across 217 sources, with an annual growth rate of 19.7% and a mean of 17.7 citations per article; 294 articles (72.4%) were published from 2020 onward.

South Korea contributed the largest fractional share (14.6%), while the United States produced the highest mean annual citation rate among the top 10 countries (4.93 citations/year). The logistic model fitted cumulative output closely (R² = 0.97), with an estimated saturation ceiling of approximately 1,172 articles and a projected peak annual output of about 75 articles around 2028. The most-cited articles centered on validation against dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA).

Author-keyword mapping identified seven clusters, including a clinically oriented cluster linking distinct but related themes of sarcopenia, older adults, phase angle, hemodialysis, malnutrition, and frailty. Recent trend topics included phase angle, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, frailty, young adults, and weight loss. Cross-database validation showed broadly consistent temporal, geographic, and source patterns across WoS, Scopus, and PubMed; all 12 leading WoS author keywords also appeared in Scopus, of which nine ranked within the Scopus top 10.</p>Conclusion<p>InBody-related research is expanding rapidly and shifting from device validation toward clinical application, particularly in geriatric and clinical nutrition.

Three priorities emerge: (i) device-model-specific and population-specific validation, particularly under-represented regions; (ii) population- and condition-specific phase-angle reference ranges; and (iii) longitudinal and intervention-responsive designs rather than additional cross-sectional DXA comparisons. Addressing these priorities may support more consistent, evidence-based interpretation of InBody-derived body composition measures in nutrition and clinical practice.</p>