Dataset Information

Comparison of Anthropometry, Bioelectrical Impedance, and Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry for Body Composition in Cirrhosis.

ABSTRACT:

Background & aims

This study was planned to evaluate triceps skinfold thickness (TSFT), mid-arm muscle circumference (MAMC) and bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) for assessing body composition using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) (reference) and to predict fat mass (FM) and fat-free mass (FFM) in patients with cirrhosis.

Methods

FM and FFM were assessed by using DEXA and BIA. Skin-fold calliper was used for measuring TSFT, and MAMC was calculated. Bland-Altman plot was used to determine agreement and linear regression analysis for obtaining equations to predict FM and FFM.

Results

Patients with cirrhosis (n = 302, 241 male, age 43.7 ± 12.0 years) were included. Bland-Altman plot showed very good agreement between BIA and DEXA for the estimation of FM and FFM. Majority of patients were within the limit of agreement: FM (98%) and FFM (96.4%). BIA shows a positive correlation with DEXA:FM (r = 0.73, P ≤ 0.001) and FFM (r = 0.86, P ≤ 0.001). DEXA (FM and FFM) shows a positive correlation with TSFT (r = 0.69, P ≤ 0.01) and MAMC (r = 0.61, P ≤ 0.01). The mean difference between the observed and predicted value of FM and FFM by BIA in the developmental set was 0.01 and 0.05, respectively; whereas in the validation set, it was -0.13 and 0.86, respectively. The mean difference between the observed and predicted value of TSFT and MAMC in the developmental set was 0.43 and 0.07; whereas, in the validation set, it was 0.16 and 0.48, respectively.

Conclusion

Anthropometry (TSFT and MAMC) and BIA are simple and easy to use and can be a substitute of DEXA for FM and FFM assessment in routine clinical settings in patients with cirrhosis.

SUBMITTER: Grover I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9077186 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Mar-Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of Anthropometry, Bioelectrical Impedance, and Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry for Body Composition in Cirrhosis.

Grover Indu I Singh Namrata N Gunjan Deepak D Pandey Ravindra M RM Chandra Sati Hem H Saraya Anoop A

Journal of clinical and experimental hepatology 20210609 2

<h4>Background & aims</h4>This study was planned to evaluate triceps skinfold thickness (TSFT), mid-arm muscle circumference (MAMC) and bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) for assessing body composition using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) (reference) and to predict fat mass (FM) and fat-free mass (FFM) in patients with cirrhosis.<h4>Methods</h4>FM and FFM were assessed by using DEXA and BIA. Skin-fold calliper was used for measuring TSFT, and MAMC was calculated. Bland-Altman plot w ...[more]

PMID: 35535105

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe 4-component (4C) model is a criterion method for human body composition that separates the body into fat, water, mineral, and protein, but requires 4 measurements with significant cost and time requirements that preclude wide clinical use. A simplified model integrating only 2 measurements-dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA)-and 10 min of patient time has been proposed.ObjectiveWe aimed to validate a rapid, simplified 4C DXA + BIA body composition model in a clinical population.DesignThis was a cross-sectional observational study of 31 healthy adults. Participants underwent whole-body DXA, segmental BIA, air displacement plethysmography (ADP), and total body water (TBW) measurement by deuterium (D2O) dilution. 4C composition was calculated through the use of the Lohman model [DXA mineral mass, D2O TBW, ADP body volume (BV), scale weight] and the simplified model (DXA mineral mass and BV, BIA TBW, scale weight). Accuracy of percentage of fat (%Fat) and protein measurements was assessed via linear regression. Test-retest precision was calculated with the use of duplicate DXA and BIA measurements.ResultsOf 31 participants, 23 were included in the analysis. TBWBIA showed good test-retest precision (%CV = 5.2 raw; 1.1 after outlier removal) and high accuracy to TBWD2O [TBWD2O = 0.956*TBWBIA, R2= 0.92, root mean squared error (RMSE) = 2.2 kg]. %Fat estimates from DXA, ADP, D2O, and BIA all showed high correlation with the Lohman model. However, only the 4C simplified model provides high accuracy for both %Fat (R2 = 0.96, RMSE = 2.33) and protein mass (R2= 0.76, RMSE = 1.8 kg). %Fat precision from 4C DXA + BIA was comparable with DXA (root mean square-SD = 0.8 and 0.6 percentage units, respectively).ConclusionsThis work validates a simplified 4C method that measures fat, water, mineral, and protein in a 10-min clinic visit. This model has broad clinical application to monitor many conditions including over/dehydration, malnutrition, obesity, sarcopenia, and cachexia.

Project description:IntroductionAssessment of fat mass has historically employed various methods like Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA), and bioelectrical impedance (BIA), and anthropometry with its set of formulas. However, doubts persist regarding their validity and interchangeability to evaluate fat mass. This research aimed to determine the validity of anthropometry, and BIA in estimating fat mass Vs DXA, considering the influence of sex and hydration status.MethodsA descriptive, cross-sectional study included 265 young adults (161 males and 104 females), assessed through DXA, BIA in a standing position, and anthropometry. A fat mass estimation formula with DXA, a fat mass estimation formula with BIA and 10 fat mass estimation formulas with anthropometry were calculated.ResultsSignificant differences were found across DXA, BIA and anthropometry in both kilograms and percentages for the overall sample (p<0.001), and when the covariable sex was included (p<0.001), with no significant effect of hydration status (p=0.332-0.527). Bonferroni-adjusted analyses revealed significant differences from DXA with anthropometry and BIA in most cases for the overall sample (p<0.001), as well as when stratified by sex (p<0.001-0.016). Lin's coefficient indicated poor agreement between most of the formulas and methods both in percentage and kilograms of fat mass (CCC=0.135-0.892). In the Bland-Altman analysis, using the DXA fat mass values as a reference, lack of agreement was found in the general sample (p<0.001-0.007), except for Carter's formula in kilograms (p=0.136) and percentage (p=0.929) and Forsyth for percentage (p=0.365). When separating the sample by sex, lack of agreement was found in males for all methods when compared with both percentage and kilograms calculated by DXA (p<0.001). In the female sample, all methods and formulas showed lack of agreement (p<0.001-0.020), except for Evans's in percentage (p=0.058).ConclusionThe formulas for fat mass assessment with anthropometry and BIA may not be valid with respect to the values reported with DXA, with the exception of Carter's anthropometry formula for general sample and Evans's anthropometry formula for female sample. BIA could also be an alternative if what is needed is to assess fat mass in women as a group.

Project description:IntroductionMethods of body composition estimation such as dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), anthropometry, and bioimpedance (BIA) are used for the estimation of skeletal muscle mass (SMM) and lean body mass (LBM). No previous studies have examined whether these methods generate comparable results, or whether they are valid by using DXA as the reference. The aims of the present investigation were: (a) to assess the differences between DXA, anthropometry, and BIA in the estimation of SMM and LBM, taking into consideration the impact of sex and hydration status; and (b) to examine the agreement of anthropometry and BIA as compared to DXA for the estimation of SMM and LBM.MethodsA descriptive cross-sectional design was followed with 262 healthy young adults (159 males and 103 females). LBM and SMM were assessed by anthropometry with the formulas from Lee et al. and Kulkarni et al. for LBM; and Kerr (opt a), Kerr (opt b), Lee et al., Poortmans, Matiegka, Martin et al., Drinkwater and Ross, and Heymsfield et al. for SMM; by BIA with the formula reported by the TANITA MC-780-MA software for LBM and SMM; and DXA with the formula reported by the Hologic Horizon software for LBM, and the conversion by Kim et al. for SMM.ResultsSignificant differences were found for both SMM and LBM in kg, and percentages between most methods and formulas for the overall sample (p < 0.001-0.003) and divided by sex (p < 0.001-0.035). Hydration status did not have a significant effect on the differences between methods and formulas (p = 0.058-0.870). Lin's coefficient revealed limited agreement among the majority of formulas and methods (CCC = 0.007-0.880). The Bland-Altman analysis showed significant differences in most methods and formulas, both in the overall sample and divided by sex, when using SMM and LBM with DXA as the reference (p < 0.001-0.030).ConclusionThere is a lack of agreement between methods and formulas for assessing SMM and LBM. Sex was found to be a significant factor in this analysis. Furthermore, significant differences were observed between most formulas and methods as compared to DXA, except for the equations to estimate SMM with anthropometry by Poortmans.

Project description:A variety of easy-to-use commercial bioelectrical impedance appliances are available. The aim of this study was to examine the usefulness of a commercially available body composition meter using bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) by comparing its measurement results with those obtained from dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). The participants were 443 children aged from 10 to 14 years (226 boys and 217 girls). Fat mass, fat-free mass, lean body mass, percentage of body fat, and bone mineral contents were evaluated for all participants using BIA and DXA. The agreement in the anthropometric data obtained from both devices was analyzed using correlation analysis, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), Bland-Altman plots, and ordinary least products regression analysis. Equivalence between both devices was tested by two one-sided t-test. All measured indicators showed strong linear correlations between the two measurement systems (r, 0.853-1.000). Fat mass, fat-free mass, and lean body mass showed absolute concordance (ICC, 0.902-0.972; Lin's CCC, 0.902-0.972). BIA overestimated bone mineral content (62.7-66.5%) and underestimated percentage of body fat (- 8.9 to - 0.8%), lean body mass (- 3.5 to - 1.8%), and body mass (- 0.8 to - 0.5%). For fat mass and fat-free mass, the overestimate or underestimate varied according to the sex and statistical analysis test. Bland-Altman analysis and ordinary least products analysis showed fixed bias and proportional bias in all indicators. Results according to quartiles of body mass index showed poor agreement for fat mass and percentage of body fat in both boys and girls in the lowest body mass index quartile. The present results revealed strong linear correlations between BIA and DXA, which confirmed the validity of the present single-frequency BIA-derived parameters. Our results suggest that BIA cannot provide the exact same values as DXA for some body composition parameters, but that performance is sufficient for longitudinal use within an individual for daily health management and monitoring.

Dataset Information

Comparison of Anthropometry, Bioelectrical Impedance, and Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry for Body Composition in Cirrhosis.

Background & aims

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Comparison of Anthropometry, Bioelectrical Impedance, and Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry for Body Composition in Cirrhosis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets