Cargando…
Concordance between muscle mass assessed by bioelectrical impedance analysis and by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry: a cross-sectional study
BACKGROUND: Besides magnetic resonance imaging, dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) seems the most reliable tool to evaluate body composition and is often considered as the gold standard in clinical practice. Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) could provide a simpler, portative, and less expe...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4369090/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25887598 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-015-0510-9 |
_version_ | 1782362726798983168 |
---|---|
author | Buckinx, Fanny Reginster, Jean-Yves Dardenne, Nadia Croisiser, Jean-Louis Kaux, Jean-François Beaudart, Charlotte Slomian, Justine Bruyère, Olivier |
author_facet | Buckinx, Fanny Reginster, Jean-Yves Dardenne, Nadia Croisiser, Jean-Louis Kaux, Jean-François Beaudart, Charlotte Slomian, Justine Bruyère, Olivier |
author_sort | Buckinx, Fanny |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Besides magnetic resonance imaging, dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) seems the most reliable tool to evaluate body composition and is often considered as the gold standard in clinical practice. Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) could provide a simpler, portative, and less expensive alternative. Because the body composition assessment by BIA is device-dependent, the aim of this study was to appraise the concordance between the specific bioelectrical impedance device InBody S10 and DXA for the body composition evaluation. METHODS: Body composition, included appendicular lean mass divided by height squared (ALM/ht(2)) was measured by DXA (Hologic QDR Discovery device) and by BIA (InBody S10 Biospace device). Agreement between tools was assessed by means of the Bland Altman method and reliability was determined using the IntraClass Coefficient (ICC). ICC was also computed to assess the reliability of the test-retest performed by the same operator or by two different ones. RESULTS: A total of 219 subjects were enrolled in this study (mean age: 43.7 ± 19.1 years old, 51.6% of women). For the ALM/ht(2), reliability of the test-retest of the BIA was high with an ICC of 0.89 (95%CI: 0.86-0.92) when performed by the same operator and an ICC of 0.77 (95%CI: 0.72-0.82) when performed by two different operators. Agreement between ALM/ht(2) assessed by DXA and BIA was low (ICC = 0.37 (95%CI: 0.25-0.48)). Mean ALM/ht(2) was 9.19 ± 1.39 kg/m(2) with BIA and 7.34 ± 1.34 kg/m(2) with DXA, (p < 0001). A formula developed using a multiple regression analysis, and taking into account muscle mass assessed by BIA, as well as sex and body mass index, explains 89% of the ALM/ht(2) assessed by DXA. CONCLUSIONS: Although our results show that the measure of ALM/ht(2) by BIA is reliable, the agreement between DXA and BIA is low. Indeed, BIA seems to overestimate ALM/ht(2) compared to DXA and, consequently, it is important to use an adapted formula to obtain measurement of the appendicular lean mass by BIA close to that measured by DXA. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4369090 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-43690902015-03-22 Concordance between muscle mass assessed by bioelectrical impedance analysis and by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry: a cross-sectional study Buckinx, Fanny Reginster, Jean-Yves Dardenne, Nadia Croisiser, Jean-Louis Kaux, Jean-François Beaudart, Charlotte Slomian, Justine Bruyère, Olivier BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research Article BACKGROUND: Besides magnetic resonance imaging, dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) seems the most reliable tool to evaluate body composition and is often considered as the gold standard in clinical practice. Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) could provide a simpler, portative, and less expensive alternative. Because the body composition assessment by BIA is device-dependent, the aim of this study was to appraise the concordance between the specific bioelectrical impedance device InBody S10 and DXA for the body composition evaluation. METHODS: Body composition, included appendicular lean mass divided by height squared (ALM/ht(2)) was measured by DXA (Hologic QDR Discovery device) and by BIA (InBody S10 Biospace device). Agreement between tools was assessed by means of the Bland Altman method and reliability was determined using the IntraClass Coefficient (ICC). ICC was also computed to assess the reliability of the test-retest performed by the same operator or by two different ones. RESULTS: A total of 219 subjects were enrolled in this study (mean age: 43.7 ± 19.1 years old, 51.6% of women). For the ALM/ht(2), reliability of the test-retest of the BIA was high with an ICC of 0.89 (95%CI: 0.86-0.92) when performed by the same operator and an ICC of 0.77 (95%CI: 0.72-0.82) when performed by two different operators. Agreement between ALM/ht(2) assessed by DXA and BIA was low (ICC = 0.37 (95%CI: 0.25-0.48)). Mean ALM/ht(2) was 9.19 ± 1.39 kg/m(2) with BIA and 7.34 ± 1.34 kg/m(2) with DXA, (p < 0001). A formula developed using a multiple regression analysis, and taking into account muscle mass assessed by BIA, as well as sex and body mass index, explains 89% of the ALM/ht(2) assessed by DXA. CONCLUSIONS: Although our results show that the measure of ALM/ht(2) by BIA is reliable, the agreement between DXA and BIA is low. Indeed, BIA seems to overestimate ALM/ht(2) compared to DXA and, consequently, it is important to use an adapted formula to obtain measurement of the appendicular lean mass by BIA close to that measured by DXA. BioMed Central 2015-03-18 /pmc/articles/PMC4369090/ /pubmed/25887598 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-015-0510-9 Text en © Buckinx et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Buckinx, Fanny Reginster, Jean-Yves Dardenne, Nadia Croisiser, Jean-Louis Kaux, Jean-François Beaudart, Charlotte Slomian, Justine Bruyère, Olivier Concordance between muscle mass assessed by bioelectrical impedance analysis and by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry: a cross-sectional study |
title | Concordance between muscle mass assessed by bioelectrical impedance analysis and by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry: a cross-sectional study |
title_full | Concordance between muscle mass assessed by bioelectrical impedance analysis and by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry: a cross-sectional study |
title_fullStr | Concordance between muscle mass assessed by bioelectrical impedance analysis and by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry: a cross-sectional study |
title_full_unstemmed | Concordance between muscle mass assessed by bioelectrical impedance analysis and by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry: a cross-sectional study |
title_short | Concordance between muscle mass assessed by bioelectrical impedance analysis and by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry: a cross-sectional study |
title_sort | concordance between muscle mass assessed by bioelectrical impedance analysis and by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry: a cross-sectional study |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4369090/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25887598 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-015-0510-9 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT buckinxfanny concordancebetweenmusclemassassessedbybioelectricalimpedanceanalysisandbydualenergyxrayabsorptiometryacrosssectionalstudy AT reginsterjeanyves concordancebetweenmusclemassassessedbybioelectricalimpedanceanalysisandbydualenergyxrayabsorptiometryacrosssectionalstudy AT dardennenadia concordancebetweenmusclemassassessedbybioelectricalimpedanceanalysisandbydualenergyxrayabsorptiometryacrosssectionalstudy AT croisiserjeanlouis concordancebetweenmusclemassassessedbybioelectricalimpedanceanalysisandbydualenergyxrayabsorptiometryacrosssectionalstudy AT kauxjeanfrancois concordancebetweenmusclemassassessedbybioelectricalimpedanceanalysisandbydualenergyxrayabsorptiometryacrosssectionalstudy AT beaudartcharlotte concordancebetweenmusclemassassessedbybioelectricalimpedanceanalysisandbydualenergyxrayabsorptiometryacrosssectionalstudy AT slomianjustine concordancebetweenmusclemassassessedbybioelectricalimpedanceanalysisandbydualenergyxrayabsorptiometryacrosssectionalstudy AT bruyereolivier concordancebetweenmusclemassassessedbybioelectricalimpedanceanalysisandbydualenergyxrayabsorptiometryacrosssectionalstudy |