Alberto Bazzocchi1, Danila Diano2, Federico Ponti2, Eugenio Salizzoni2, Ugo Albisinni3, Giulio Marchesini4, Giuseppe Battista2. 1. Department of Specialized, Diagnostic, and Experimental Medicine, University of Bologna, Sant'Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italy; Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, "Rizzoli" Orthopaedic Institute, Bologna, Italy. Electronic address: abazzo@inwind.it. 2. Department of Specialized, Diagnostic, and Experimental Medicine, University of Bologna, Sant'Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italy. 3. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, "Rizzoli" Orthopaedic Institute, Bologna, Italy. 4. Unit of Metabolic Diseases & Clinical Dietetics, University of Bologna, Sant'Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italy.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to test the relationship between anthropometry, ultrasonography, and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) for the assessment of body composition in clinical practice. METHODS: The study was carried out in Italian blood donor volunteers belonging to five different age groups (18-70 y old; 25 men and 25 women per group; N = 250 participants; n = 125 men, n = 125 women). A complete history was collected and routine blood analyses were performed to confirm healthy status. All participants were submitted to whole-body DXA (tricompartmental analysis, regional, and total body), ultrasonography (abdominal adiposity evaluation), and anthropometric measurements. DXA was used as gold standard and its biomarkers were taken as reference for fat-lean mass balance, central-peripheral fat distribution, central or visceral fat, and subcutaneous fat. RESULTS: Anthropometric and ultrasound parameters were closely associated with most of DXA parameters. Composite markers representative of central and abdominal visceral fat compartments were significantly correlated with waist circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, and intra-abdominal fat thickness by ultrasound, in both men and women (P < 0.025). As expected, subcutaneous depots were significantly correlated with maximum subcutaneous fat thickness measured by ultrasonography (P < 0.025). CONCLUSIONS: Both anthropometry and ultrasonography provide a reliable estimate of visceral adipose tissue in a non-obese population compared with DXA, whereas anthropometry prediction of subcutaneous adiposity is weak. Physicians should be aware of the limits of these techniques for the assessment of body composition.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to test the relationship between anthropometry, ultrasonography, and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) for the assessment of body composition in clinical practice. METHODS: The study was carried out in Italian blood donor volunteers belonging to five different age groups (18-70 y old; 25 men and 25 women per group; N = 250 participants; n = 125 men, n = 125 women). A complete history was collected and routine blood analyses were performed to confirm healthy status. All participants were submitted to whole-body DXA (tricompartmental analysis, regional, and total body), ultrasonography (abdominal adiposity evaluation), and anthropometric measurements. DXA was used as gold standard and its biomarkers were taken as reference for fat-lean mass balance, central-peripheral fat distribution, central or visceral fat, and subcutaneous fat. RESULTS: Anthropometric and ultrasound parameters were closely associated with most of DXA parameters. Composite markers representative of central and abdominal visceral fat compartments were significantly correlated with waist circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, and intra-abdominal fat thickness by ultrasound, in both men and women (P < 0.025). As expected, subcutaneous depots were significantly correlated with maximum subcutaneous fat thickness measured by ultrasonography (P < 0.025). CONCLUSIONS: Both anthropometry and ultrasonography provide a reliable estimate of visceral adipose tissue in a non-obese population compared with DXA, whereas anthropometry prediction of subcutaneous adiposity is weak. Physicians should be aware of the limits of these techniques for the assessment of body composition.
Authors: M B Cook; S Wood; P L Hyland; P Caron; J Drahos; R T Falk; R M Pfeiffer; S M Dawsey; C C Abnet; P R Taylor; C Guillemette; L J Murray; L A Anderson Journal: Andrology Date: 2017-02-27 Impact factor: 3.842
Authors: J Bassols; J-M Martínez-Calcerrada; A Prats-Puig; G Carreras-Badosa; S Xargay-Torrent; E Lizarraga-Mollinedo; M Feliu-Alsina; E Riera-Pérez; I Osiniri; F de Zegher; L Ibáñez; A López-Bermejo Journal: Int J Obes (Lond) Date: 2017-09-25 Impact factor: 5.095
Authors: Sara Guerri; Daniele Mercatelli; Maria Pilar Aparisi Gómez; Alessandro Napoli; Giuseppe Battista; Giuseppe Guglielmi; Alberto Bazzocchi Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2018-02
Authors: Francesca De Blasio; Erica P A Rutten; Emiel F M Wouters; Luca Scalfi; Francesco De Blasio; Marco A Akkermans; Martijn A Spruit; Frits M E Franssen Journal: Multidiscip Respir Med Date: 2016-10-04
Authors: Ludovico Abenavoli; Laura DI Renzo; Pietro Hiram Guzzi; Rinaldo Pellicano; Natasa Milic; Antonino DE Lorenzo Journal: Clujul Med Date: 2015-11-15