Yair Lahav1, Nir Goldstein1, Yftach Gepner2. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, and Sylvan Adams Sports Institute, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel. 2. Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, and Sylvan Adams Sports Institute, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel. gepner@tauex.tau.ac.il.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: InBody-770 and SECA mBCA 515 are multifrequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) devices, which are commonly used in the clinic to assess fat-free mass (FFM) and body fat (BF). However, the accuracy between devices in clinical settings, across different body mass index (BMI) groups remains unclear. METHODS: Body composition for 226 participants (51% men, aged 18-80 years, BMI 18-56 kg/m²) was assessed by two commercial multifrequency BIA devices requiring standing position and using eight-contact electrodes, InBody 770 and SECA mBCA 515, and compared to results from dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Measurements were performed in a random order, after a 3 h fast and no prior exercise. Lin's-concordance correlation and Bland-Altman analyses were used to compare between devices, and linear regression to assess accuracy in BF% across BMI groups. RESULTS: We found strong correlation between DXA results for study population BF% and those obtained by InBody (ρc = 0.922, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.902, 0.938) and DXA and SECA (ρc = 0.940, CI 0.923, 0.935), with 95% limits of agreements between 2.6 and -8.9, and 7.1 and -7.6, respectively. BF% assessment by SECA was similar to DXA (-0.3%, p = 0.267), and underestimated by InBody (-3.1%, p < 0.0001). InBody deviations were largest among normal weight people and decreased with increasing BMI group, while SECA measurements remained unaffected. CONCLUSIONS: Both BIA devices agreed well with BF% assessment obtained by DXA. Unlike SECA, InBody underestimated BF% in both genders and was influenced by BMI categories. Therefore, in clinical settings, individual assessment of BF% should be taken with caution.
BACKGROUND: InBody-770 and SECA mBCA 515 are multifrequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) devices, which are commonly used in the clinic to assess fat-free mass (FFM) and body fat (BF). However, the accuracy between devices in clinical settings, across different body mass index (BMI) groups remains unclear. METHODS: Body composition for 226 participants (51% men, aged 18-80 years, BMI 18-56 kg/m²) was assessed by two commercial multifrequency BIA devices requiring standing position and using eight-contact electrodes, InBody 770 and SECA mBCA 515, and compared to results from dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Measurements were performed in a random order, after a 3 h fast and no prior exercise. Lin's-concordance correlation and Bland-Altman analyses were used to compare between devices, and linear regression to assess accuracy in BF% across BMI groups. RESULTS: We found strong correlation between DXA results for study population BF% and those obtained by InBody (ρc = 0.922, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.902, 0.938) and DXA and SECA (ρc = 0.940, CI 0.923, 0.935), with 95% limits of agreements between 2.6 and -8.9, and 7.1 and -7.6, respectively. BF% assessment by SECA was similar to DXA (-0.3%, p = 0.267), and underestimated by InBody (-3.1%, p < 0.0001). InBody deviations were largest among normal weight people and decreased with increasing BMI group, while SECA measurements remained unaffected. CONCLUSIONS: Both BIA devices agreed well with BF% assessment obtained by DXA. Unlike SECA, InBody underestimated BF% in both genders and was influenced by BMI categories. Therefore, in clinical settings, individual assessment of BF% should be taken with caution.
Authors: Nicolaas E P Deutz; Ione Ashurst; Maria D Ballesteros; Danielle E Bear; Alfonso J Cruz-Jentoft; Laurence Genton; Francesco Landi; Alessandro Laviano; Kristina Norman; Carla M Prado Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Luíza M Garlini; Fernanda D Alves; Luciane B Ceretta; Ingrid S Perry; Gabriela C Souza; Nadine O Clausell Journal: Eur J Clin Nutr Date: 2018-04-26 Impact factor: 4.016
Authors: Zachary J Ward; Sara N Bleich; Angie L Cradock; Jessica L Barrett; Catherine M Giles; Chasmine Flax; Michael W Long; Steven L Gortmaker Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2019-12-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jennifer W Bea; Cynthia A Thomson; Betsy C Wertheim; J Skye Nicholas; Kacey C Ernst; Chengcheng Hu; Rebecca D Jackson; Jane A Cauley; Cora E Lewis; Bette Caan; Denise J Roe; Zhao Chen Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2015-09-07 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Monira I Aldhahi; Wafa K Al Khalil; Rawan B Almutiri; Mada M Alyousefi; Bayader S Alharkan; Haya AnNasban Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-01-13 Impact factor: 3.390