English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Objective  This study aimed to examine the cross validity of two anthropometric equations commonly used and propose simple anthropometric equations to estimate appendicular muscle mass (AMM) in elderly women.    Methods  Among 234 physically active and functionally independent elderly women, 101 (60 to 89 years) were selected through simple drawing to compose the study sample. The paired t test and the Pearson correlation coefficient were used to perform cross-validation and concordance was verified by intraclass correction coefficient (ICC) and by the Bland and Altman technique. To propose predictive models, multiple linear regression analysis, anthropometric measures of body mass (BM), height, girth, skinfolds, body mass index (BMI) were used, and muscle perimeters were included in the analysis as independent variables. Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry (AMM DXA ) was used as criterion measurement. The sample power calculations were carried out by  Post Hoc Compute Achieved Power . Sample power values from 0.88 to 0.91 were observed.    Results  When compared, the two equations tested differed significantly from the AMM DXA  (p <0.001 and p = 0.001). Ten population / specific anthropometric equations were developed to estimate AMM, among them, three equations achieved all validation criteria used: AMM  (E2)  = 4.150 +0.251 [bodymass (BM)] - 0.411 [bodymass index (BMI)] + 0.011 [Right forearm perimeter (PANTd)  2 ]; AMM  (E3)  = 4.087 + 0.255 (BM) - 0.371 (BMI) + 0.011 (PANTd)  2  - 0.035 [thigh skinfold (DCCO)]; MMA  (E6)  = 2.855 + 0.298 (BM) + 0.019 (Age) - 0,082 [hip circumference (PQUAD)] + 0.400 (PANTd) - 0.332 (BMI). The equations estimated the criterion method (p = 0.056 p = 0.158), and explained from 0.69% to 0.74% of variations observed in AMM DXA  with low standard errors of the estimate (1.36 to 1.55 kg) and high concordance (ICC between 0,90 and 0.91 and concordance limits from -2,93 to 2,33 kg).    Conclusion  The equations tested were not valid for use in physically active and functionally independent elderly women. The simple anthropometric equations developed in this study showed good practical applicability and high validity to estimate AMM in elderly women.

Development and validation of anthropometric equations to estimate appendicular muscle mass in elderly women