Reliability and accuracy of segmental bioelectrical impedance analysis for assessing muscle and fat mass in older Europeans: a comparison with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry.
ABSTRACT Segmental determination of muscle and fat mass (MM, FM) attains growing importance for judging effects of training and malnutrition in older people. This study evaluated the reliability and accuracy of segmental bioelectrical impedance analysis (sBIA) for use in older people. In 72 (40 men, 32 women) healthy elderly (mean age 69.0 ± 4.8 years), the MM and FM of right and left arm (RA, LA), right and left leg (RL, LL), and trunk were determined by sBIA (BC-418-MA, Tanita) and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) as a reference method. The sBIA provided in both sexes reliable values for limb and truncal MM and FM, except for MM of RL in women. The accuracy of sBIA displayed sex-specific bias. For MM, accurate values were noted for men's trunk and women's limbs (except LA). By contrast, MM was significantly underestimated in men's limbs by 6-18% and overestimated in women's LA (13%) and trunk (14%). Estimates of FM were accurate for men's arms as well as women's legs and trunk. However, FM was significantly overestimated in men's legs (34-37%) and trunk (60%), but underestimated in women's arms (27-35%). The proportional deviations of sBIA estimates from DXA values for limbs and trunk were significantly related to the respective MM or FM. The sBIA tends to underestimate MM in men and to overestimate in women. The reverse occurs for FM. The actual equations of the Tanita device may not completely represent the European older population and should be partly revised.
- SourceAvailable from: scielo.clRevista medica de Chile 12/2012; 140(12):1613-1614. · 0.36 Impact Factor
- Geriatrics & Gerontology International 10/2013; 13(4):1085-6.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Obesity is a risk factor for colorectal neoplasia. Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) is a novel and convenient method to measure body fat mass. The correlation between BIA and adenoma risk is unknown. To conduct a cross-sectional study to evaluate BIA and other measures of obesity as risk factors for adenomas. Participants underwent screening colonoscopy between 2006 and 2008. Waist-hip ratio (WHR) and body mass index (BMI) were measured. Percent body fat was calculated by BIA using a proprietary scale. Physical activity and other risk factors were assessed by telephone interview. 255 patients with adenomas and 679 adenoma-free subjects were included. Increased age, male sex, and decreased physical activity were associated with adenoma prevalence. In multivariate analysis, WHR and BMI were independently associated with adenoma prevalence. Patients in the highest tertile of WHR had an OR of 2.0 (95% CI 1.2-3.2) compared to the lowest tertile. Obese white patients had significantly increased odds of having adenomas (OR 2.0 (95% CI 1.3, 3.2)) compared to whites with a normal BMI. Percent body fat measured by BIA was not associated with adenoma status: patients in the highest tertile of percent body fat had an OR of 1.0 (95% CI 0.7-1.6) compared to patients with the lowest tertile. Percent body fat calculated by BIA was not associated with adenoma prevalence. Although BIA is a quick and convenient measure of adiposity, it is not predictive of adenoma risk perhaps because it measures the amount of fat but not the distribution.Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology research. 01/2013; 2(3):445-448.