INTRODUCTION: Studies of obesity require the estimation of fat mass (FM) and fat-free mass (FFM); therefore it is important to validate methods that evaluate these measurements. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare two different bioelectrical impedance analysis systems (BIAs) to estimate FM and FFM using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) as reference. METHODS: We used a cross-sectional design. We evaluated FM and FFM using DXA and two types of BIA equipment: a foot-foot system (FFS) and a hand-foot system (HFS). We conducted paired analysis (paired ttest). We used Bland-Altman plots to assess the relationships between FM and FFMI, limits of agreement were constructed (CL). RESULTS: A total of 175 female students (22.9 ± 2.2 years old) participated in the study. The paired analysis showed significant differences between the mean value of body fat percentage (BF%) estimated by BIA equipment compared to DXA (FFS = 28.7%, HFS= 34.4% and DXA= 35.3%). The mean difference between the HFS and DXA of BF% was -0.96, ((CL -5.29, 7.20). For the FFS, the mean difference was -6.69, (CL -0.29, -13.09). The paired analysis revealed significant differences between the estimates of FFMI by BIA compared to DXA (FFS =16.29, HFS =14.95, DXA =14.18). The mean difference between HFS and DXA was 0.78, and (CL -2.27, 0.72) whereas the FFS mean difference was -2.11 (CL -3.73 -0.49). CONCLUSION: A different magnitude of bias was observed between the BIA equipment arrays. The HFS appears to be more reliable than the FFS used, particularly in obtaining FFMI in young women. Copyright AULA MEDICA EDICIONES 2014. Published by AULA MEDICA. All rights reserved.
INTRODUCTION: Studies of obesity require the estimation of fat mass (FM) and fat-free mass (FFM); therefore it is important to validate methods that evaluate these measurements. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare two different bioelectrical impedance analysis systems (BIAs) to estimate FM and FFM using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) as reference. METHODS: We used a cross-sectional design. We evaluated FM and FFM using DXA and two types of BIA equipment: a foot-foot system (FFS) and a hand-foot system (HFS). We conducted paired analysis (paired ttest). We used Bland-Altman plots to assess the relationships between FM and FFMI, limits of agreement were constructed (CL). RESULTS: A total of 175 female students (22.9 ± 2.2 years old) participated in the study. The paired analysis showed significant differences between the mean value of body fat percentage (BF%) estimated by BIA equipment compared to DXA (FFS = 28.7%, HFS= 34.4% and DXA= 35.3%). The mean difference between the HFS and DXA of BF% was -0.96, ((CL -5.29, 7.20). For the FFS, the mean difference was -6.69, (CL -0.29, -13.09). The paired analysis revealed significant differences between the estimates of FFMI by BIA compared to DXA (FFS =16.29, HFS =14.95, DXA =14.18). The mean difference between HFS and DXA was 0.78, and (CL -2.27, 0.72) whereas the FFS mean difference was -2.11 (CL -3.73 -0.49). CONCLUSION: A different magnitude of bias was observed between the BIA equipment arrays. The HFS appears to be more reliable than the FFS used, particularly in obtaining FFMI in young women. Copyright AULA MEDICA EDICIONES 2014. Published by AULA MEDICA. All rights reserved.
Authors: David Monasor-Ortolá; Jose Antonio Quesada-Rico; Ana Pilar Nso-Roca; Mercedes Rizo-Baeza; Ernesto Cortés-Castell; Asier Martínez-Segura; Francisco Sánchez-Ferrer Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-11-18 Impact factor: 3.390