| Literature DB >> 25943377 |
Thushari Bandara1, Manjula Hettiarachchi2, Chandrani Liyanage3, Sujeewa Amarasena4, William Wai-Lun Wong5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Body composition indicators provide a better guidance for growth and nutritional status of the infants. This study was designed to (1) measure the body composition of the Sri Lankan infants using a reference method, the (18)O dilution method; (2) calculate the body fat content of the infants using published skinfold prediction equations; and (3) evaluate the applicability of the skinfold equations to predict body fat among Sri Lankan infants against the (18)O dilution method.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25943377 PMCID: PMC4428108 DOI: 10.1186/s12887-015-0371-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Pediatr ISSN: 1471-2431 Impact factor: 2.125
Infants’ characteristics (n = 24) and anthropometric measurements
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (months) | 4.5 | 0.8 | 4.0–6.0 |
| Birth weight (kg) | 2.9 | 0.6 | 2.0–4.0 |
| Weight (kg) | 6.5 | 0.9 | 5.0–8.0 |
| Length (cm | 64.7 | 2.8 | 60.3–69.8 |
| Weight-for-age Z score | −0.41 | 1.5 | −2.0–1.9 |
| Height-for-age Z score | 0.49 | 1.0 | −1.4–2.4 |
| Body mass index (kg/m2) | 15.6 | 1.7 | 12.6–19.7 |
| Skin-fold thicknesses (mm) | |||
| Triceps | 9.0 | 1.0 | 7.0–11.0 |
| Biceps | 7.4 | 1.1 | 5.0–9.0 |
| Subscapular | 8.5 | 1.0 | 7.0–11.0 |
| Suprailliac | 10.0 | 1.5 | 7.0–13.0 |
| Mid upper arm circumference (cm) | 14.4 | 1.0 | 12.0–16.0 |
Body composition of the infant by isotope dilution technique
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Total body water (%) | 56.7 (2.9) | 61.3* (5.9) | 58.8 (5.0) |
| 18O content (ppm) | |||
| Baseline samples | 1998.3 (0.7) | 1998.3 (1.0) | 1998.3 (0.8) |
| 5-h samples | 2190.1 (27.2) | 2145.8 (17.0) | 2168.8 (31.8) |
| 3-d samples | 2095.6 (15.8) | 2080.5 (16.6) | 2088.4 (17.6) |
| Fat free mass (kg) | 4.3 (0.6) | 5.0** (0.8) | 4.6 (0.8) |
| Fat mass (kg) | 2.0 (0.5) | 1.9 (0.6) | 1.9 (0.5) |
| % Fat mass | 31.3 (5.3) | 27.3 (6.5) | 29.5 (6.1) |
The single and double asterisks represents the 2-sample t-test between the boys and the girls (*p = 0.02, **p = 0.01). 18O content represents the 18O content of the baseline and post-dose urine samples collected from the infants.
Results are given as mean (SD).
Percentage fat mass of the infants by anthropometric prediction equations
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Bandana | 33.8 | 12.0 | 15.7–55.9 |
| Shaikh & Dilip, 2004 [ | 20.5 | 1.6 | 17.6–24.0 |
| Goran | 19.6 | 4.0 | 9.4–26.6 |
| Slaughter | 16.8 | 1.3 | 13.9–19.5 |
| Slaughter | |||
| All female | 20.3 | 1.7 | 17.5–23.8 |
| White female | 19.5 | 2.0 | 15.4–22.5 |
| Black male | 18.0 | 2.0 | 13.9–21.1 |
| Brook, 1971 [ | 21.4 | 2.0 | 17.6–25.0 |
| Yuan | 20.6 | 0.9 | 18.5–22.5 |
| Liu | 16.8 | 1.3 | 13.9–19.5 |
| Deurenberg | |||
| Equation 1 | 18.1 | 1.5 | 14.7–21.5 |
| Equation 2 | 19.5 | 1.3 | 16.5–21.8 |
| Durnin & Wormsley, 1974 [ | 25.6 | 1.3 | 23.6–27.5 |
| Sloan | 16.8 | 0.8 | 15.9–18.3 |
Bland and Altman pair-wise comparison (all values in the table are expressed as percentage unit)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||||||
| Bandana | 17.84 | 9.63 | −0.536 | 37.250 | 0.569 | −1.42 | 37.11 | ||||
| Shaikh | −5.49 | 6.68 | −1.928 | 41.812 | 0.000 | −10.11 | 16.61 | −58.32 | −31.60 | ||
| Goran | −7.47 | 8.58 | −0.706 | 9.139 | 0.363 | −24.62 | 9.68 | ||||
| Slaughter | −10.12 | 6.91 | −1.934 | 32.850 | 0.000 | −12.75 | 1.07 | −61.11 | −47.29 | ||
| Slaughter (white) | −7.75 | 7.12 | −1.837 | 35.248 | 0.002 | −15.73 | 12.73 | −61.67 | −33.21 | ||
| Slaughter (black) | −9.25 | 7.12 | −1.837 | 32.369 | 0.002 | −18.61 | 9.85 | −64.54 | −36.08 | ||
| Brook | −4.59 | 6.94 | −2.028 | 46.083 | 0.000 | −8.37 | 19.41 | −59.08 | −31.30 | ||
| Yuan | −6.50 | 6.76 | −2.009 | 41.762 | 0.000 | −11.93 | 15.09 | −62.16 | −35.14 | ||
| Liu | −10.12 | 6.91 | −1.935 | 32.850 | 0.000 | 6.17 | 7.99 | −68.03 | −40.37 | ||
| Deurenberg (Equation 1) | −9.63 | 6.83 | −1.980 | 34.845 | 0.000 | −18.41 | 8.91 | −67.91 | −40.59 | ||
| Deurenberg (Equation 2) | −8.45 | 6.80 | −2.057 | 38.961 | 0.000 | −15.78 | 11.40 | −67.21 | −40.03 | ||
|
| |||||||||||
| Bandana | −7.20 | 6.83 | 0.108 | −10.199 | 0.824 | −20.85 | 6.45 | ||||
| Shaikh | −11.99 | 5.29 | −0.951 | 27.023 | 0.000 | −2.57 | 18.59 | −26.34 | −5.18 | ||
| Goran | −11.96 | 4.53 | −0.538 | 1.690 | 0.112 | −21.01 | −2.91 | ||||
| Slaughter | −14.76 | 4.90 | −1.536 | 22.057 | 0.000 | −18.45 | 1.13 | −56.85 | −37.27 | ||
| Slaughter (all female) | −11.08 | 4.76 | −1.284 | 22.078 | 0.000 | −13.13 | 5.91 | −45.24 | −26.20 | ||
| Brook | −11.07 | 4.97 | −1.322 | 23.067 | 0.000 | −13.32 | 6.57 | −46.38 | −26.49 | ||
| Yuan | −10.90 | 5.04 | −1.729 | 33.881 | 0.000 | −10.78 | 9.38 | −54.00 | −33.85 | ||
| Liu | −14.76 | 4.90 | −1.536 | 22.057 | 0.000 | −18.45 | 1.13 | −56.85 | −37.26 | ||
| Deurenberge (Equation 1) | −12.90 | 5.10 | −1.406 | 22.097 | 0.000 | −16.20 | 4.18 | −51.34 | −30.96 | ||
| Deurenberg (Equation 1) | −11.29 | 5.02 | −1.573 | 29.170 | 0.000 | −12.36 | 7.74 | −51.70 | −31.60 | ||
| Durnnin & Wormsley | −5.79 | 5.01 | −0.492 | 6.798 | 0.680 | −15.81 | 4.23 | ||||
| Sloan | −14.59 | 5.28 | −1.839 | 29.654 | 0.000 | −17.68 | 3.42 | −63.67 | −42.57 |
Descriptions and references for the each equation are illustrated in the additional pdf file [see Additional file 1]. Slope, slope of the linear regression analysis between the differences in %FM of the two methods and their average values; intercept, intercept of the linear regression analysis; P, p value of the regression analysis performed between the differences and the average %FM values; Bias-2SD and Bias + 2SD, 95% confidence level of the bias; LL, lower limit; UL, upper limit; 20%, the minimal %FM measured on our infants; 45%, the maximal %FM measured on our infants.