Literature DB >> 16375994

Comparison of body weight and composition measured by two different dual energy X-ray absorptiometry devices and three acquisition modes in obese women.

Laurence Genton1, Véronique L Karsegard, Sophie Zawadynski, Ursula G Kyle, Claude Pichard, Alain Golay, Didier B Hans.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Weight measured by dual-energy X-ray (DXA) was shown to be increasingly underestimated in subjects over 75 kg compared to an electronic scale. This study compares body weight and composition measured by balance beam scale and three DXA acquisition modes in obese subjects.
METHODS: In 39 obese, body weight was measured by balance beam scale, and body weight and composition by DXA Hologic QDR4500A in normal (NPM) and high power mode (HPM) (Enhanced v8.26 and v8.26* software) and DXA GE-Lunar Prodigy (v6.5 software). To ensure linearity of body weight and composition measured by the different DXA acquisitions, we also measured 13 women with a body mass index (BMI) of 25-30 kg/m(2).
RESULTS: While QDR4500A HPM overestimates scale weight by about 2 kg over the whole BMI spectrum, QDR4500A NPM underestimates scale weight as a weight-dependent response (-1.7+/-1.8 kg overall, -4.1+/-1.6 kg in morbidly obese women). These results suggest switching from one mode to the other at a specific threshold, i.e. in our study a weight of 90 kg or a BMI of 34 kg/m(2). Prodigy gives weight about similar to scale (+0.5+/-0.8 kg). Both Hologic acquisition modes underestimate fat mass but overestimate lean body mass compared to Prodigy.
CONCLUSIONS: The QDR4500A NPM is inappropriate in women over 90 kg. Unfortunately, the QDR4500A HPM overestimates body weight in the range of 90-150 kg. The difference between scale and Prodigy weight remains stable throughout weight ranges. To better assess their accuracies in terms of body composition, QDR4500A NPM, HPM and Prodigy should be tested against phantoms or in vivo multi-compartment models.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16375994     DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2005.11.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Nutr        ISSN: 0261-5614            Impact factor:   7.324


  5 in total

1.  Reference standards for body fat measures using GE dual energy x-ray absorptiometry in Caucasian adults.

Authors:  Mary T Imboden; Whitney A Welch; Ann M Swartz; Alexander H K Montoye; Holmes W Finch; Matthew P Harber; Leonard A Kaminsky
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-04-07       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  External validation of BIA equations to estimate appendicular skeletal muscle mass in older adults: Importance of the bias analysis and derivation of correction factors to achieve agreement.

Authors:  María Cáñez-Ríos; Julián Esparza-Romero; Rogelio González-Arellanes; Maribel Ramírez-Torres; Guadalupe Figueroa-Pesqueira; René Urquidez-Romero; Diana Beatriz Rangel-Peniche; Heliodoro Alemán-Mateo
Journal:  Front Nutr       Date:  2022-08-25

3.  Collagen fragment biomarkers as serological biomarkers of lean body mass - a biomarker pilot study from the DAHANCA25B cohort and matched controls.

Authors:  Anders Nedergaard; Ulrik Dalgas; Hanne Primdahl; Jørgen Johansen; Jens Overgaard; Kristian Overgaard; Kim Henriksen; Morten Asser Karsdal; Simon Lønbro
Journal:  J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle       Date:  2015-04-22       Impact factor: 12.910

Review 4.  A PRISMA-driven systematic review of predictive equations for assessing fat and fat-free mass in healthy children and adolescents using multicomponent molecular models as the reference method.

Authors:  Analiza M Silva; David A Fields; Luís B Sardinha
Journal:  J Obes       Date:  2013-06-06

5.  An approach to quantifying abnormalities in energy expenditure and lean mass in metabolic disease.

Authors:  L P E Watson; P Raymond-Barker; C Moran; N Schoenmakers; C Mitchell; L Bluck; V K Chatterjee; D B Savage; P R Murgatroyd
Journal:  Eur J Clin Nutr       Date:  2013-11-27       Impact factor: 4.016

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.