Premium
Comparison of segmental multifrequency bioelectrical impedance analysis with dual‐energy X ‐ray absorptiometry for the assessment of body composition in a community‐dwelling older population
Author(s) -
Kim Miji,
Shinkai Shoji,
Murayama Hiroshi,
Mori Seijiro
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
geriatrics and gerontology international
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.823
H-Index - 57
eISSN - 1447-0594
pISSN - 1444-1586
DOI - 10.1111/ggi.12384
Subject(s) - bioelectrical impedance analysis , dual energy x ray absorptiometry , medicine , lean body mass , population , nuclear medicine , dual energy , bland–altman plot , standard error , fat mass , limits of agreement , body mass index , statistics , mathematics , body weight , bone mineral , osteoporosis , environmental health
Aim The purpose of the present study was to examine the agreement of segmental multifrequency bioelectrical impedance analysis ( SMF‐BIA ) for the assessment of whole‐body and appendicular fat mass ( FM ) and lean soft tissue mass ( LSTM ) compared with dual‐energy X ‐ray absorptiometry ( DXA ) in a community‐dwelling J apanese older population. Methods The study population included 551 community‐dwelling J apanese older adults (241 men and 310 women) aged between 65 and 87 years. Agreement between SMF‐BIA and DXA for whole‐body and appendicular body composition was assessed using simple linear regression and B land– A ltman analysis. Results High coefficients of determination ( R 2 ) were observed for whole‐body FM ( R 2 = 0.91, standard error of estimate [ SEE ] = 1.4 kg in men and R 2 = 0.94, SEE = 1.2 kg in women) between SMF‐BIA and DXA . The R 2 coefficient for whole‐body LSTM was higher in men ( R 2 = 0.88, SEE = 1.9 kg) than in women ( R 2 = 0.83, SEE = 1.5 kg). There was systematic bias with overestimation of whole‐body FM and underestimation of whole‐body LSTM by SMF‐BIA . Proportional bias was noted for measurement of whole‐body FM and LSTM in both men and women, but there was no proportional bias between the two methods for measurement of appendicular LSTM ( r = 0.05, P = 0.428 and r = −0.10, P = 0.070 for men and women, respectively). Conclusion SMF‐BIA is a good alternative for estimating the whole‐body and appendicular FM and LSTM in a community‐dwelling J apanese older population, although it overestimated FM and underestimated LSTM when validated against DXA . Geriatr Gerontol Int 2015; 15: 1013–1022.