Eline Vermeiren1, Marijke Ysebaert2, Kim Van Hoorenbeeck2,3, Luc Bruyndonckx2, Kristof Van Dessel2,4, Maria Van Helvoirt5, Ann De Guchtenaere5, Benedicte De Winter2, Stijn Verhulst2,3, Annelies Van Eyck2,3. 1. Laboratory of Experimental Medicine and Paediatrics, University of Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1, Wilrijk, Belgium. eline.vermeiren@uantwerpen.be. 2. Laboratory of Experimental Medicine and Paediatrics, University of Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1, Wilrijk, Belgium. 3. Department of Paediatrics, University Hospital of Antwerp, Wilrijkstraat 10, Edegem, Belgium. 4. Department of Endocrinology, University Hospital of Antwerp, Wilrijkstraat 10, Edegem, Belgium. 5. Het Zeepreventorium, Koninklijke Baan 5, De Haan, Belgium.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Obesity and age influence the reliability of dual energy X-ray absorptiometry scanning (DEXA) and bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS). Both are used in clinical settings, but have not been compared for measurements in obese children. We compared DEXA and BIS for evaluating body composition and inherent changes in obese children before and after a 10-month weight loss programme. METHODS: DEXA and BIS were used to evaluate 130 patients at baseline and 75 at follow-up. We tested agreement between the two techniques using Bland-Altman plots and proportional bias using Passing-Bablok regressions. RESULTS: The Bland-Altman plots showed wide agreement limits before and after weight loss and when monitoring longitudinal changes. At baseline, the Passing-Bablok regressions revealed a proportional bias for all body compartments. After significant weight loss no proportional bias was found for fat mass and percentage, although BIS systematically underestimated fat mass by 2.9 kg. Longitudinally, no proportional bias was found in the measured changes of absolute fat, fat-free mass and fat-free percentage between both methods, although BIS systematically underestimated fat and fat-free mass by 2.6 and 0.7 kg, respectively. CONCLUSION: While BIS and DEXA are not interchangeable at baseline, the agreement between the two improved after significant weight loss. Proportional changes in fat mass, fat-free mass and fat-free percentage were similar for both techniques. BIS is a viable alternative to DEXA for future paediatric obesity studies measuring treatment effect at group levels, but is not superior to DEXA and cannot be used for monitoring individual changes due to wide limits of agreement.
BACKGROUND:Obesity and age influence the reliability of dual energy X-ray absorptiometry scanning (DEXA) and bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS). Both are used in clinical settings, but have not been compared for measurements in obesechildren. We compared DEXA and BIS for evaluating body composition and inherent changes in obesechildren before and after a 10-month weight loss programme. METHODS:DEXA and BIS were used to evaluate 130 patients at baseline and 75 at follow-up. We tested agreement between the two techniques using Bland-Altman plots and proportional bias using Passing-Bablok regressions. RESULTS: The Bland-Altman plots showed wide agreement limits before and after weight loss and when monitoring longitudinal changes. At baseline, the Passing-Bablok regressions revealed a proportional bias for all body compartments. After significant weight loss no proportional bias was found for fat mass and percentage, although BIS systematically underestimated fat mass by 2.9 kg. Longitudinally, no proportional bias was found in the measured changes of absolute fat, fat-free mass and fat-free percentage between both methods, although BIS systematically underestimated fat and fat-free mass by 2.6 and 0.7 kg, respectively. CONCLUSION: While BIS and DEXA are not interchangeable at baseline, the agreement between the two improved after significant weight loss. Proportional changes in fat mass, fat-free mass and fat-free percentage were similar for both techniques. BIS is a viable alternative to DEXA for future paediatric obesity studies measuring treatment effect at group levels, but is not superior to DEXA and cannot be used for monitoring individual changes due to wide limits of agreement.
Authors: Ulrich M Moissl; Peter Wabel; Paul W Chamney; Ingvar Bosaeus; Nathan W Levin; Anja Bosy-Westphal; Oliver Korth; Manfred J Müller; Lars Ellegård; Vibeke Malmros; Charoen Kaitwatcharachai; Martin K Kuhlmann; Fansan Zhu; Nigel J Fuller Journal: Physiol Meas Date: 2006-07-25 Impact factor: 2.833
Authors: Abbie E Smith-Ryan; Meredith G Mock; Eric D Ryan; Gena R Gerstner; Eric T Trexler; Katie R Hirsch Journal: Clin Nutr Date: 2016-05-15 Impact factor: 7.324
Authors: A Javed; M Jumean; M H Murad; D Okorodudu; S Kumar; V K Somers; O Sochor; F Lopez-Jimenez Journal: Pediatr Obes Date: 2014-06-25 Impact factor: 4.000
Authors: Aviva B Sopher; John C Thornton; Jack Wang; Richard N Pierson; Steven B Heymsfield; Mary Horlick Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Indranil Dasgupta; David Keane; Elizabeth Lindley; Ihab Shaheen; Kay Tyerman; Franz Schaefer; Elke Wühl; Manfred J Müller; Anja Bosy-Westphal; Hans Fors; Jovanna Dahlgren; Paul Chamney; Peter Wabel; Ulrich Moissl Journal: Pediatr Nephrol Date: 2018-06-04 Impact factor: 3.714
Authors: Eline Vermeiren; Annelies Van Eyck; Karolien Van De Maele; Marijke Ysebaert; Sanae Makhout; Ann De Guchtenaere; Maria Van Helvoirt; Ann Tanghe; Tiffany Naets; Leentje Vervoort; Caroline Braet; Luc Bruyndonckx; Benedicte De Winter; Stijn Verhulst; Kim Van Hoorenbeeck Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) Date: 2022-06-13 Impact factor: 6.055
Authors: Annelies Van Eyck; Sofie Eerens; Dominique Trouet; Eline Lauwers; Kristien Wouters; Benedicte Y De Winter; Johanna H van der Lee; Koen Van Hoeck; Kristien J Ledeganck Journal: Eur J Pediatr Date: 2021-01-22 Impact factor: 3.183
Authors: Sanae Makhout; Eline Vermeiren; Karolien Van De Maele; Luc Bruyndonckx; Benedicte Y De Winter; Kim Van Hoorenbeeck; Stijn L Verhulst; Annelies Van Eyck Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2022-01-20