Agreement Between 2 Segmental Bioimpedance Devices, BOD POD, and DXA in Obese Adults

This study examined the agreement between 2 segmental bioimpedance analysis (BIA) devices, air displacement plethysmography (BOD POD), and dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) for estimating body composition in obese adults. Fifty obese adults (25 men and 25 women; age = 34.20 ± 11.19 years; BMI =...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of clinical densitometry 2020-01, Vol.23 (1), p.138-148
Hauptverfasser: Nickerson, Brett S., McLester, Cherilyn N., McLester, John R., Kliszczewicz, Brian M.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 148
container_issue 1
container_start_page 138
container_title Journal of clinical densitometry
container_volume 23
creator Nickerson, Brett S.
McLester, Cherilyn N.
McLester, John R.
Kliszczewicz, Brian M.
description This study examined the agreement between 2 segmental bioimpedance analysis (BIA) devices, air displacement plethysmography (BOD POD), and dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) for estimating body composition in obese adults. Fifty obese adults (25 men and 25 women; age = 34.20 ± 11.19 years; BMI = 36.14 ± 5.33 kg/m2) had their body fat percentage (BF%) and fat-free mass (FFM) evaluated with 2 segmental BIA devices (InBody 230 and InBody 720), BOD POD, and DXA (Lunar iDXA). Body composition via the BOD POD was determined using the Siri equation whereas manufacturer-based equations generated metrics (ie, BF% and FFM) for the InBody devices. The effect size of the mean differences for all BF% and FFM comparisons were trivial (Cohen's d < 0.20). The standard error of estimate (SEE), total error (TE), and 95% limits of agreement (LOAs) were low for both segmental BIA devices when compared to DXA (SEE < 2.26% and 2.35 kg; TE < 2.58% and 2.66 kg; 95% LOAs < ± 4.94% and 4.86kg). The error for BOD POD was also low when compared to DXA (SEE = 2.39% and 2.57 kg; TE = 2.34% and 2.56 kg; 95% LOAs = 4.63% and 5.06 kg). Validity statistics were slightly higher, but considered acceptable, when comparing the segmental BIA devices against BOD POD (SEE < 3.37% and 3.63 kg; TE < 3.44% and 3.79 kg; 95% LOAs < ± 6.62% and 7.19 kg). Lastly, the 2 segmental BIA devices produced nearly identical validity statistics when compared to each other. However, both BIA devices revealed proportional bias for BF% and FFM when compared to the BOD POD and DXA (all p < 0.05). The current study's findings indicate the InBody 230 is interchangeable with the InBody 720 in obese adults. Also, the trivial effect size, when compared against the BOD POD and DXA, suggest the InBody devices could be used for estimating group BF% and FFM. In contrast, the significant proportional bias demonstrates the BIA devices are not acceptable for individual estimates of body composition in an obese clinical population.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.jocd.2019.04.005
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2232125855</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1094695019300496</els_id><sourcerecordid>2232125855</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-28c45e3c6459f086fc57b37df5821448c6b5d81fb0dbb0f874c6a1507512bf4e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1Lw0AQhhdRbK3-AQ-yRw8mzm52kw14aa1fUKhgBW9LsjspW_JRs2nFf29Kq0dPMwzP-8I8hFwyCBmw-HYVrhpjQw4sDUGEAPKIDJmUaQCJSI77HVIRxKmEATnzfgXAGVPJKRlEjHGueDoki_GyRayw7ugEuy_EmnL6hsvdJSvpxDWuWqPNaoN0iltn0N_QyXxKX-fTG5rVlk4_xtTVdJ6jRzq2m7Lz5-SkyEqPF4c5Iu-PD4v752A2f3q5H88CE8m4C7gyQmJkYiHTAlRcGJnkUWILqTgTQpk4l1axIgeb51CoRJg4YxISyXheCIxG5Hrfu26bzw36TlfOGyzLrMZm4zXnEWdcKil7lO9R0zbet1jodeuqrP3WDPTOpl7pnU29s6lB6N5mH7o69G_yCu1f5FdfD9ztAey_3DpstTcOe1fWtWg6bRv3X_8PA82C-A</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2232125855</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Agreement Between 2 Segmental Bioimpedance Devices, BOD POD, and DXA in Obese Adults</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Nickerson, Brett S. ; McLester, Cherilyn N. ; McLester, John R. ; Kliszczewicz, Brian M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Nickerson, Brett S. ; McLester, Cherilyn N. ; McLester, John R. ; Kliszczewicz, Brian M.</creatorcontrib><description><![CDATA[This study examined the agreement between 2 segmental bioimpedance analysis (BIA) devices, air displacement plethysmography (BOD POD), and dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) for estimating body composition in obese adults. Fifty obese adults (25 men and 25 women; age = 34.20 ± 11.19 years; BMI = 36.14 ± 5.33 kg/m2) had their body fat percentage (BF%) and fat-free mass (FFM) evaluated with 2 segmental BIA devices (InBody 230 and InBody 720), BOD POD, and DXA (Lunar iDXA). Body composition via the BOD POD was determined using the Siri equation whereas manufacturer-based equations generated metrics (ie, BF% and FFM) for the InBody devices. The effect size of the mean differences for all BF% and FFM comparisons were trivial (Cohen's d < 0.20). The standard error of estimate (SEE), total error (TE), and 95% limits of agreement (LOAs) were low for both segmental BIA devices when compared to DXA (SEE < 2.26% and 2.35 kg; TE < 2.58% and 2.66 kg; 95% LOAs < ± 4.94% and 4.86kg). The error for BOD POD was also low when compared to DXA (SEE = 2.39% and 2.57 kg; TE = 2.34% and 2.56 kg; 95% LOAs = 4.63% and 5.06 kg). Validity statistics were slightly higher, but considered acceptable, when comparing the segmental BIA devices against BOD POD (SEE < 3.37% and 3.63 kg; TE < 3.44% and 3.79 kg; 95% LOAs < ± 6.62% and 7.19 kg). Lastly, the 2 segmental BIA devices produced nearly identical validity statistics when compared to each other. However, both BIA devices revealed proportional bias for BF% and FFM when compared to the BOD POD and DXA (all p < 0.05). The current study's findings indicate the InBody 230 is interchangeable with the InBody 720 in obese adults. Also, the trivial effect size, when compared against the BOD POD and DXA, suggest the InBody devices could be used for estimating group BF% and FFM. In contrast, the significant proportional bias demonstrates the BIA devices are not acceptable for individual estimates of body composition in an obese clinical population.]]></description><identifier>ISSN: 1094-6950</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1559-0747</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jocd.2019.04.005</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31122829</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Air displacement plethysmography ; bioimpedance ; body composition ; DXA ; obese</subject><ispartof>Journal of clinical densitometry, 2020-01, Vol.23 (1), p.138-148</ispartof><rights>2019 The International Society for Clinical Densitometry</rights><rights>Copyright © 2019 The International Society for Clinical Densitometry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-28c45e3c6459f086fc57b37df5821448c6b5d81fb0dbb0f874c6a1507512bf4e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-28c45e3c6459f086fc57b37df5821448c6b5d81fb0dbb0f874c6a1507512bf4e3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jocd.2019.04.005$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3548,27922,27923,45993</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31122829$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Nickerson, Brett S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McLester, Cherilyn N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McLester, John R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kliszczewicz, Brian M.</creatorcontrib><title>Agreement Between 2 Segmental Bioimpedance Devices, BOD POD, and DXA in Obese Adults</title><title>Journal of clinical densitometry</title><addtitle>J Clin Densitom</addtitle><description><![CDATA[This study examined the agreement between 2 segmental bioimpedance analysis (BIA) devices, air displacement plethysmography (BOD POD), and dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) for estimating body composition in obese adults. Fifty obese adults (25 men and 25 women; age = 34.20 ± 11.19 years; BMI = 36.14 ± 5.33 kg/m2) had their body fat percentage (BF%) and fat-free mass (FFM) evaluated with 2 segmental BIA devices (InBody 230 and InBody 720), BOD POD, and DXA (Lunar iDXA). Body composition via the BOD POD was determined using the Siri equation whereas manufacturer-based equations generated metrics (ie, BF% and FFM) for the InBody devices. The effect size of the mean differences for all BF% and FFM comparisons were trivial (Cohen's d < 0.20). The standard error of estimate (SEE), total error (TE), and 95% limits of agreement (LOAs) were low for both segmental BIA devices when compared to DXA (SEE < 2.26% and 2.35 kg; TE < 2.58% and 2.66 kg; 95% LOAs < ± 4.94% and 4.86kg). The error for BOD POD was also low when compared to DXA (SEE = 2.39% and 2.57 kg; TE = 2.34% and 2.56 kg; 95% LOAs = 4.63% and 5.06 kg). Validity statistics were slightly higher, but considered acceptable, when comparing the segmental BIA devices against BOD POD (SEE < 3.37% and 3.63 kg; TE < 3.44% and 3.79 kg; 95% LOAs < ± 6.62% and 7.19 kg). Lastly, the 2 segmental BIA devices produced nearly identical validity statistics when compared to each other. However, both BIA devices revealed proportional bias for BF% and FFM when compared to the BOD POD and DXA (all p < 0.05). The current study's findings indicate the InBody 230 is interchangeable with the InBody 720 in obese adults. Also, the trivial effect size, when compared against the BOD POD and DXA, suggest the InBody devices could be used for estimating group BF% and FFM. In contrast, the significant proportional bias demonstrates the BIA devices are not acceptable for individual estimates of body composition in an obese clinical population.]]></description><subject>Air displacement plethysmography</subject><subject>bioimpedance</subject><subject>body composition</subject><subject>DXA</subject><subject>obese</subject><issn>1094-6950</issn><issn>1559-0747</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kE1Lw0AQhhdRbK3-AQ-yRw8mzm52kw14aa1fUKhgBW9LsjspW_JRs2nFf29Kq0dPMwzP-8I8hFwyCBmw-HYVrhpjQw4sDUGEAPKIDJmUaQCJSI77HVIRxKmEATnzfgXAGVPJKRlEjHGueDoki_GyRayw7ugEuy_EmnL6hsvdJSvpxDWuWqPNaoN0iltn0N_QyXxKX-fTG5rVlk4_xtTVdJ6jRzq2m7Lz5-SkyEqPF4c5Iu-PD4v752A2f3q5H88CE8m4C7gyQmJkYiHTAlRcGJnkUWILqTgTQpk4l1axIgeb51CoRJg4YxISyXheCIxG5Hrfu26bzw36TlfOGyzLrMZm4zXnEWdcKil7lO9R0zbet1jodeuqrP3WDPTOpl7pnU29s6lB6N5mH7o69G_yCu1f5FdfD9ztAey_3DpstTcOe1fWtWg6bRv3X_8PA82C-A</recordid><startdate>202001</startdate><enddate>202001</enddate><creator>Nickerson, Brett S.</creator><creator>McLester, Cherilyn N.</creator><creator>McLester, John R.</creator><creator>Kliszczewicz, Brian M.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202001</creationdate><title>Agreement Between 2 Segmental Bioimpedance Devices, BOD POD, and DXA in Obese Adults</title><author>Nickerson, Brett S. ; McLester, Cherilyn N. ; McLester, John R. ; Kliszczewicz, Brian M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-28c45e3c6459f086fc57b37df5821448c6b5d81fb0dbb0f874c6a1507512bf4e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Air displacement plethysmography</topic><topic>bioimpedance</topic><topic>body composition</topic><topic>DXA</topic><topic>obese</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Nickerson, Brett S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McLester, Cherilyn N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McLester, John R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kliszczewicz, Brian M.</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of clinical densitometry</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Nickerson, Brett S.</au><au>McLester, Cherilyn N.</au><au>McLester, John R.</au><au>Kliszczewicz, Brian M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Agreement Between 2 Segmental Bioimpedance Devices, BOD POD, and DXA in Obese Adults</atitle><jtitle>Journal of clinical densitometry</jtitle><addtitle>J Clin Densitom</addtitle><date>2020-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>23</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>138</spage><epage>148</epage><pages>138-148</pages><issn>1094-6950</issn><eissn>1559-0747</eissn><abstract><![CDATA[This study examined the agreement between 2 segmental bioimpedance analysis (BIA) devices, air displacement plethysmography (BOD POD), and dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) for estimating body composition in obese adults. Fifty obese adults (25 men and 25 women; age = 34.20 ± 11.19 years; BMI = 36.14 ± 5.33 kg/m2) had their body fat percentage (BF%) and fat-free mass (FFM) evaluated with 2 segmental BIA devices (InBody 230 and InBody 720), BOD POD, and DXA (Lunar iDXA). Body composition via the BOD POD was determined using the Siri equation whereas manufacturer-based equations generated metrics (ie, BF% and FFM) for the InBody devices. The effect size of the mean differences for all BF% and FFM comparisons were trivial (Cohen's d < 0.20). The standard error of estimate (SEE), total error (TE), and 95% limits of agreement (LOAs) were low for both segmental BIA devices when compared to DXA (SEE < 2.26% and 2.35 kg; TE < 2.58% and 2.66 kg; 95% LOAs < ± 4.94% and 4.86kg). The error for BOD POD was also low when compared to DXA (SEE = 2.39% and 2.57 kg; TE = 2.34% and 2.56 kg; 95% LOAs = 4.63% and 5.06 kg). Validity statistics were slightly higher, but considered acceptable, when comparing the segmental BIA devices against BOD POD (SEE < 3.37% and 3.63 kg; TE < 3.44% and 3.79 kg; 95% LOAs < ± 6.62% and 7.19 kg). Lastly, the 2 segmental BIA devices produced nearly identical validity statistics when compared to each other. However, both BIA devices revealed proportional bias for BF% and FFM when compared to the BOD POD and DXA (all p < 0.05). The current study's findings indicate the InBody 230 is interchangeable with the InBody 720 in obese adults. Also, the trivial effect size, when compared against the BOD POD and DXA, suggest the InBody devices could be used for estimating group BF% and FFM. In contrast, the significant proportional bias demonstrates the BIA devices are not acceptable for individual estimates of body composition in an obese clinical population.]]></abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>31122829</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jocd.2019.04.005</doi><tpages>11</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1094-6950
ispartof Journal of clinical densitometry, 2020-01, Vol.23 (1), p.138-148
issn 1094-6950
1559-0747
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2232125855
source Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete - AutoHoldings
subjects Air displacement plethysmography
bioimpedance
body composition
DXA
obese
title Agreement Between 2 Segmental Bioimpedance Devices, BOD POD, and DXA in Obese Adults
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-09T13%3A56%3A12IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Agreement%20Between%202%20Segmental%20Bioimpedance%20Devices,%20BOD%20POD,%20and%20DXA%20in%20Obese%20Adults&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20clinical%20densitometry&rft.au=Nickerson,%20Brett%20S.&rft.date=2020-01&rft.volume=23&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=138&rft.epage=148&rft.pages=138-148&rft.issn=1094-6950&rft.eissn=1559-0747&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jocd.2019.04.005&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2232125855%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2232125855&rft_id=info:pmid/31122829&rft_els_id=S1094695019300496&rfr_iscdi=true