Literature DB >> 33592586

Agreement of bioelectrical resistance, reactance, and phase angle values from supine and standing bioimpedance analyzers.

Jacob R Dellinger1, Baylor A Johnson1, Marqui L Benavides1, M Lane Moore1,2, Matthew T Stratton1, Patrick S Harty1, Madelin R Siedler1, Grant M Tinsley1.   

Abstract

Objective. Bioimpedance devices are commonly used to assess health parameters and track changes in body composition. However, the cross-sectional agreement between different devices has not been conclusively established. Thus, the objective of this investigation was to examine the agreement between raw bioelectrical variables (resistance, reactance, and phase angle at the 50 kHz frequency) obtained from three bioimpedance analyzers.Approach. Healthy male (n = 76, mean ± SD; 33.8 ± 14.5 years; 83.9 ± 15.1 kg; 179.4 ± 6.9 cm) and female (n = 103, mean ± SD; 33.4 ± 15.9 years; 65.6 ± 12.1 kg; 164.9 ± 6.4 cm) participants completed assessments using three bioimpedance devices: supine bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS), supine single-frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (SFBIA), and standing multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (MFBIA). Differences in raw bioelectrical variables between the devices were quantified via one-way analysis of variance for the total sample and for each sex. Equivalence testing was used to determine equivalence between methods.Main results. Significant differences in all bioelectrical variables were observed between the three devices when examining the total sample and males only. The devices appeared to exhibit slightly better agreement when analyzing female participants only. Equivalence testing using the total sample as well as males and females separately revealed that resistance and phase angle were equivalent between the supine devices (BIS, SFBIA), but not with the standing analyzer (MFBIA).Significance. The present study demonstrated disagreement between different bioimpedance analyzers for quantifying raw bioelectrical variables, with the poorest agreement between devices that employed different body positions during testing. These results suggest that researchers and clinicians should employ device-specific reference values to classify participants based on raw bioelectrical variables, such as phase angle. If reference values are needed but are unavailable for a particular bioimpedance analyzer, the set of reference values produced using the most similar analyzer and reference population should be selected.
© 2021 Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  bioelectrical impedance analysis; bioimpedance spectroscopy; body composition; impedance; phase angle

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33592586     DOI: 10.1088/1361-6579/abe6fa

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Physiol Meas        ISSN: 0967-3334            Impact factor:   2.833


  8 in total

1.  Bioelectrical Impedance Vector Analysis Discriminates Aerobic Power in Futsal Players: The Role of Body Composition.

Authors:  Catarina N Matias; Francesco Campa; Giuseppe Cerullo; Giuseppe D'Antona; Rita Giro; João Faleiro; Joana F Reis; Cristina P Monteiro; Maria J Valamatos; Filipe J Teixeira
Journal:  Biology (Basel)       Date:  2022-03-25

Review 2.  Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis for the Assessment of Body Composition in Sarcopenia and Type 2 Diabetes.

Authors:  Stefano Sbrignadello; Christian Göbl; Andrea Tura
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2022-04-29       Impact factor: 6.706

3.  Bioelectrical impedance analysis versus reference methods in the assessment of body composition in athletes.

Authors:  Francesco Campa; Luis Alberto Gobbo; Silvia Stagi; Leticia Trindade Cyrino; Stefania Toselli; Elisabetta Marini; Giuseppe Coratella
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2022-01-24       Impact factor: 3.078

4.  Changes in Body Composition, Energy Expenditure, and Energy Intake during Four Years of University-A Follow-Up Study.

Authors:  Shai Olansky; Kayleigh M Beaudry; Stacey Woods; Erin Barbour-Tuck; Kimberley L Gammage; Panagiota Klentrou; Andrea R Josse
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-04-10       Impact factor: 3.390

5.  Reference Percentiles for Bioelectrical Phase Angle in Athletes.

Authors:  Francesco Campa; Diana Maria Thomas; Krista Watts; Nicholas Clark; Daniel Baller; Thomas Morin; Stefania Toselli; Josely Correa Koury; Giovanni Melchiorri; Angela Andreoli; Gabriele Mascherini; Cristian Petri; Luis Bettencourt Sardinha; Analiza Monica Silva
Journal:  Biology (Basel)       Date:  2022-02-08

6.  Generalized bioelectric impedance-based equations underestimate body fluids in athletes.

Authors:  Giuseppe Coratella; Francesco Campa; Catarina N Matias; Stefania Toselli; Josely C Koury; Angela Andreoli; Lui S B Sardinha; Analiza M Silva
Journal:  Scand J Med Sci Sports       Date:  2021-08-19       Impact factor: 4.645

7.  Does Body Position Influence Bioelectrical Impedance? An Observational Pilot Study.

Authors:  Paweł Więch; Filip Wołoszyn; Patrycja Trojnar; Mateusz Skórka; Dariusz Bazaliński
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-08-11       Impact factor: 4.614

8.  A Novel Plant-Based Protein Has Similar Effects Compared to Whey Protein on Body Composition, Strength, Power, and Aerobic Performance in Professional and Semi-Professional Futsal Players.

Authors:  Filipe J Teixeira; Catarina N Matias; João Faleiro; Rita Giro; Joana Pires; Helena Figueiredo; Raquel Carvalhinho; Cristina P Monteiro; Joana F Reis; Maria J Valamatos; Vítor H Teixeira; Brad J Schoenfeld
Journal:  Front Nutr       Date:  2022-07-19
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.