A comparison of dual energy X- ray absorptiometry and two bioelectrical impedance analyzers to measure body fat percentage and fat-free mass index in a group of Mexican young women
Introduction: Studies of obesity require the estimation of fat mass (FM) and fat-free mass (FFM); therefore it is important to validate methods that evaluate these measu- rements. Objective: We sought to compare two different bioelec- trical impedance analysis systems (BIAs) to estimate FM and FFM u...
| Autores: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2014 |
| País: | México |
| Institución: | Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana |
| Repositorio: | Redalyc-UAM |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:redalyc.org:309231670012 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=309231670012 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Medicina Fat BIA DXA Body fat Validation |
| Sumario: | Introduction: Studies of obesity require the estimation of fat mass (FM) and fat-free mass (FFM); therefore it is important to validate methods that evaluate these measu- rements. Objective: We sought to compare two different bioelec- trical impedance analysis systems (BIAs) to estimate FM and FFM using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) as reference. Methods: We used a cross-sectional design. We evaluated FM and FFM using DXA and two types of BIA equipment: a foot-foot system (FFS) and a hand-foot- system (HFS). We conducted paired analysis (paired t- test). We used Bland-Altman plots to assess the relations- hips between FM and FFMI, limits of agreement were constructed (CL) Results: A total of 175 female students (22.9 ± 2.2 years- old) participated in the study. The paired analysis showed significant differences between the mean value of body fat percentage (BF%) estimated by BIA equipment compared to DXA (FFS = 28.7%, HFS= 34.4% and DXA= 35.3%). The mean difference between the HFS and DXA of BF% was -0.96, ((CL -5.29, 7.20). For the FFS, the mean difference was -6.69, (CL -0.29, -13.09). The paired analysis revealed significant differences between the esti- mates of FFMI by BIA compared to DXA (FFS =16.29, HFS =14.95, DXA =14.18). The mean difference between HFS and DXA was 0.78, and (CL -2.27, 0.72) whereas the FFS mean difference was -2.11 (CL -3.73 -0.49). Conclusion: A different magnitude of bias was observed between the BIA equipment arrays. The HFS appears to be more reliable than the FFS used, particu- larly in obtaining FFMI in young women. |
|---|