Literature DB >> 28756995

An Investigation Into the Differences in Bone Density and Body Composition Measurements Between 2 GE Lunar Densitometers and Their Comparison to a 4-Component Model.

Laura P E Watson1, Michelle C Venables2, Peter R Murgatroyd3.   

Abstract

We describe a study to assess the precision of the GE Lunar iDXA and the agreement between the iDXA and GE Lunar Prodigy densitometers for the measurement of regional- and total-body bone and body composition in normal to obese healthy adults. We compare the whole-body fat mass by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) to measurements by a 4-component (4-C) model. Sixty-nine participants, aged 37 ± 12 yr, with a body mass index of 26.2 ± 5.1 kg/cm2, were measured once on the Prodigy and twice on the iDXA. The 4-C model estimated fat mass from body mass, total body water by deuterium dilution, body volume by air displacement plethysmography, and bone mass by DXA. Agreements between measurements made on the 2 instruments and by the 4-C model were analyzed by Bland-Altman and linear regression analyses. Where appropriate, translational cross-calibration equations were derived. Differences between DXA software versions were investigated. iDXA precision was less than 2% of the measured value for all regional- and whole-body bone and body composition measurements with the exception of arm fat mass (2.28%). We found significant differences between iDXA and Prodigy (p < 0.05) whole-body and regional bone, fat mass (FM), and lean mass, with the exception of hip bone mass, area and density, and spine area. Compared to iDXA, Prodigy overestimated FM and underestimated lean mass. However, compared to 4-C, iDXA showed a smaller bias and narrower limits of agreement than Prodigy. No significant differences between software versions in FM estimations existed. Our results demonstrate excellent iDXA precision. However, significant differences exist between the 2 GE Lunar instruments, Prodigy and iDXA measurement values. A divergence from the reference 4-C observations remains in FM estimations made by DXA even following the recent advances in technology. Further studies are particularly warranted in individuals with large FM contents.
Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  4-component model; Accuracy; DXA; fat mass; total body water

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28756995     DOI: 10.1016/j.jocd.2017.06.029

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Densitom        ISSN: 1094-6950            Impact factor:   2.617


  4 in total

1.  Estimates of the precision of regional and whole body composition by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry in persons with chronic spinal cord injury.

Authors:  Ashraf S Gorgey; Christopher M Cirnigliaro; William A Bauman; Robert A Adler
Journal:  Spinal Cord       Date:  2018-03-06       Impact factor: 2.772

2.  Does Bone Mineral Density Differ between Fan-Beam and Pencil-Beam?: A Meta-Analysis and Systemic Review.

Authors:  Byung-Ho Yoon; Young Do Koh; Jun-Il Yoo; Sujin Kim; Guen Young Lee; Sung Bin Park; Yong-Chan Ha
Journal:  J Bone Metab       Date:  2021-02-28

3.  Joint associations between objectively measured physical activity volume and intensity with body fatness: the Fenland study.

Authors:  Tim Lindsay; Katrien Wijndaele; Kate Westgate; Paddy Dempsey; Tessa Strain; Emanuella De Lucia Rolfe; Nita G Forouhi; Simon Griffin; Nick J Wareham; Søren Brage
Journal:  Int J Obes (Lond)       Date:  2021-09-30       Impact factor: 5.095

4.  Cross-calibration of two dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry devices for the measurement of body composition in young children.

Authors:  Jaz Lyons-Reid; Timothy Kenealy; Benjamin B Albert; Kate A Ward; Nicholas Harvey; Keith M Godfrey; Shiao-Yng Chan; Wayne S Cutfield
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-08-16       Impact factor: 4.996

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.