Comparison of body weight and composition measured by two different dual energy X-ray absorptiometry devices and three acquisition modes in obese women

Weight measured by dual-energy X-ray (DXA) was shown to be increasingly underestimated in subjects over 75 kg compared to an electronic scale. This study compares body weight and composition measured by balance beam scale and three DXA acquisition modes in obese subjects. In 39 obese, body weight wa...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Clinical nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland) Scotland), 2006-06, Vol.25 (3), p.428-437
Hauptverfasser: Genton, Laurence, Karsegard, Véronique L., Zawadynski, Sophie, Kyle, Ursula G., Pichard, Claude, Golay, Alain, Hans, Didier B.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 437
container_issue 3
container_start_page 428
container_title Clinical nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland)
container_volume 25
creator Genton, Laurence
Karsegard, Véronique L.
Zawadynski, Sophie
Kyle, Ursula G.
Pichard, Claude
Golay, Alain
Hans, Didier B.
description Weight measured by dual-energy X-ray (DXA) was shown to be increasingly underestimated in subjects over 75 kg compared to an electronic scale. This study compares body weight and composition measured by balance beam scale and three DXA acquisition modes in obese subjects. In 39 obese, body weight was measured by balance beam scale, and body weight and composition by DXA Hologic QDR4500A ® in normal (NPM) and high power mode (HPM) (Enhanced v8.26 and v8.26* softwares) and DXA GE-Lunar Prodigy ® (v6.5 software). To ensure linearity of body weight and composition measured by the different DXA acquisitions, we also measured 13 women with a body mass index (BMI) of 25–30 kg/m 2. While QDR4500A HPM overestimates scale weight by about 2 kg over the whole BMI spectrum, QDR4500A NPM underestimates scale weight as a weight-dependent response (−1.7±1.8 kg overall, −4.1±1.6 kg in morbidly obese women). These results suggest switching from one mode to the other at a specific threshold, i.e. in our study a weight of 90 kg or a BMI of 34 kg/m 2. Prodigy gives weight about similar to scale (+0.5±0.8 kg). Both Hologic acquisition modes underestimate fat mass but overestimate lean body mass compared to Prodigy. The QDR4500A NPM is inappropriate in women over 90 kg. Unfortunately, the QDR4500A HPM overestimates body weight in the range of 90–150 kg. The difference between scale and Prodigy weight remains stable throughout weight ranges. To better assess their accuracies in terms of body composition, QDR4500A NPM, HPM and Prodigy should be tested against phantoms or in vivo multi-compartment models.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.clnu.2005.11.002
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68085369</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0261561405002098</els_id><sourcerecordid>68085369</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c384t-9afdaffd4adf6de542fb4a9723ab9658a3d7d641ac0293a134b29f79298e840c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc2O1DAQhCMEYoeFF-CAfIFbBv8kji1xQSP-pJW4gMTN6tjtXY-SeNZOdpQn4XXxMIP2xqkP9VWp1FVVrxndMsrk-_3WDtOy5ZS2W8a2lPIn1Ya1gtdMK_G02lAuWd1K1lxVL3Le0wKKTj2vrpgUXat1s6l-7-J4gBRynEj0pI9uJUcMt3czgckRW9SYwxyKPCLkJaEj_UrmYyQueI8Jp5m4BQaCE6bblfyqE6wE-hzTodhGnNNKHD4Ei_lv5HyXEAnY-yX8C46uaKEU6DEjORbT9LJ65mHI-Opyr6ufnz_92H2tb75_-bb7eFNboZq51uAdeO8acF46bBvu-wZ0xwX0WrYKhOucbBhYyrUAJpqea99prhWqhlpxXb075x5SvF8wz2YM2eIwwIRxyUYqqlohdQH5GbQp5pzQm0MKI6TVMGpOc5i9Oc1hTnMYxkyZo5jeXNKXfkT3aLn8vwBvLwBkC4NPMNmQH7lOSdVqWrgPZw7LLx4CJpNtwMmiCwntbFwM_-vxBxL-rPw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>68085369</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of body weight and composition measured by two different dual energy X-ray absorptiometry devices and three acquisition modes in obese women</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Genton, Laurence ; Karsegard, Véronique L. ; Zawadynski, Sophie ; Kyle, Ursula G. ; Pichard, Claude ; Golay, Alain ; Hans, Didier B.</creator><creatorcontrib>Genton, Laurence ; Karsegard, Véronique L. ; Zawadynski, Sophie ; Kyle, Ursula G. ; Pichard, Claude ; Golay, Alain ; Hans, Didier B.</creatorcontrib><description>Weight measured by dual-energy X-ray (DXA) was shown to be increasingly underestimated in subjects over 75 kg compared to an electronic scale. This study compares body weight and composition measured by balance beam scale and three DXA acquisition modes in obese subjects. In 39 obese, body weight was measured by balance beam scale, and body weight and composition by DXA Hologic QDR4500A ® in normal (NPM) and high power mode (HPM) (Enhanced v8.26 and v8.26* softwares) and DXA GE-Lunar Prodigy ® (v6.5 software). To ensure linearity of body weight and composition measured by the different DXA acquisitions, we also measured 13 women with a body mass index (BMI) of 25–30 kg/m 2. While QDR4500A HPM overestimates scale weight by about 2 kg over the whole BMI spectrum, QDR4500A NPM underestimates scale weight as a weight-dependent response (−1.7±1.8 kg overall, −4.1±1.6 kg in morbidly obese women). These results suggest switching from one mode to the other at a specific threshold, i.e. in our study a weight of 90 kg or a BMI of 34 kg/m 2. Prodigy gives weight about similar to scale (+0.5±0.8 kg). Both Hologic acquisition modes underestimate fat mass but overestimate lean body mass compared to Prodigy. The QDR4500A NPM is inappropriate in women over 90 kg. Unfortunately, the QDR4500A HPM overestimates body weight in the range of 90–150 kg. The difference between scale and Prodigy weight remains stable throughout weight ranges. To better assess their accuracies in terms of body composition, QDR4500A NPM, HPM and Prodigy should be tested against phantoms or in vivo multi-compartment models.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0261-5614</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-1983</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2005.11.002</identifier><identifier>PMID: 16375994</identifier><identifier>CODEN: CLNUDP</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Kidlington: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Absorptiometry, Photon - instrumentation ; Absorptiometry, Photon - methods ; Adult ; Biological and medical sciences ; Body Composition ; Body Mass Index ; Body Weight ; DXA ; Female ; Humans ; Inter-device differences ; Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects) ; Medical sciences ; Metabolic diseases ; Middle Aged ; Obesity ; Obesity - physiopathology ; Osteoarticular system. Muscles ; Radiodiagnosis. Nmr imagery. Nmr spectrometry ; Reproducibility ; Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><ispartof>Clinical nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland), 2006-06, Vol.25 (3), p.428-437</ispartof><rights>2005 Elsevier Ltd and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism</rights><rights>2006 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c384t-9afdaffd4adf6de542fb4a9723ab9658a3d7d641ac0293a134b29f79298e840c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c384t-9afdaffd4adf6de542fb4a9723ab9658a3d7d641ac0293a134b29f79298e840c3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261561405002098$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=17868590$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16375994$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Genton, Laurence</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Karsegard, Véronique L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zawadynski, Sophie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kyle, Ursula G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pichard, Claude</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Golay, Alain</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hans, Didier B.</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of body weight and composition measured by two different dual energy X-ray absorptiometry devices and three acquisition modes in obese women</title><title>Clinical nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland)</title><addtitle>Clin Nutr</addtitle><description>Weight measured by dual-energy X-ray (DXA) was shown to be increasingly underestimated in subjects over 75 kg compared to an electronic scale. This study compares body weight and composition measured by balance beam scale and three DXA acquisition modes in obese subjects. In 39 obese, body weight was measured by balance beam scale, and body weight and composition by DXA Hologic QDR4500A ® in normal (NPM) and high power mode (HPM) (Enhanced v8.26 and v8.26* softwares) and DXA GE-Lunar Prodigy ® (v6.5 software). To ensure linearity of body weight and composition measured by the different DXA acquisitions, we also measured 13 women with a body mass index (BMI) of 25–30 kg/m 2. While QDR4500A HPM overestimates scale weight by about 2 kg over the whole BMI spectrum, QDR4500A NPM underestimates scale weight as a weight-dependent response (−1.7±1.8 kg overall, −4.1±1.6 kg in morbidly obese women). These results suggest switching from one mode to the other at a specific threshold, i.e. in our study a weight of 90 kg or a BMI of 34 kg/m 2. Prodigy gives weight about similar to scale (+0.5±0.8 kg). Both Hologic acquisition modes underestimate fat mass but overestimate lean body mass compared to Prodigy. The QDR4500A NPM is inappropriate in women over 90 kg. Unfortunately, the QDR4500A HPM overestimates body weight in the range of 90–150 kg. The difference between scale and Prodigy weight remains stable throughout weight ranges. To better assess their accuracies in terms of body composition, QDR4500A NPM, HPM and Prodigy should be tested against phantoms or in vivo multi-compartment models.</description><subject>Absorptiometry, Photon - instrumentation</subject><subject>Absorptiometry, Photon - methods</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Body Composition</subject><subject>Body Mass Index</subject><subject>Body Weight</subject><subject>DXA</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Inter-device differences</subject><subject>Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Metabolic diseases</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Obesity</subject><subject>Obesity - physiopathology</subject><subject>Osteoarticular system. Muscles</subject><subject>Radiodiagnosis. Nmr imagery. Nmr spectrometry</subject><subject>Reproducibility</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><issn>0261-5614</issn><issn>1532-1983</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2006</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kc2O1DAQhCMEYoeFF-CAfIFbBv8kji1xQSP-pJW4gMTN6tjtXY-SeNZOdpQn4XXxMIP2xqkP9VWp1FVVrxndMsrk-_3WDtOy5ZS2W8a2lPIn1Ya1gtdMK_G02lAuWd1K1lxVL3Le0wKKTj2vrpgUXat1s6l-7-J4gBRynEj0pI9uJUcMt3czgckRW9SYwxyKPCLkJaEj_UrmYyQueI8Jp5m4BQaCE6bblfyqE6wE-hzTodhGnNNKHD4Ei_lv5HyXEAnY-yX8C46uaKEU6DEjORbT9LJ65mHI-Opyr6ufnz_92H2tb75_-bb7eFNboZq51uAdeO8acF46bBvu-wZ0xwX0WrYKhOucbBhYyrUAJpqea99prhWqhlpxXb075x5SvF8wz2YM2eIwwIRxyUYqqlohdQH5GbQp5pzQm0MKI6TVMGpOc5i9Oc1hTnMYxkyZo5jeXNKXfkT3aLn8vwBvLwBkC4NPMNmQH7lOSdVqWrgPZw7LLx4CJpNtwMmiCwntbFwM_-vxBxL-rPw</recordid><startdate>20060601</startdate><enddate>20060601</enddate><creator>Genton, Laurence</creator><creator>Karsegard, Véronique L.</creator><creator>Zawadynski, Sophie</creator><creator>Kyle, Ursula G.</creator><creator>Pichard, Claude</creator><creator>Golay, Alain</creator><creator>Hans, Didier B.</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20060601</creationdate><title>Comparison of body weight and composition measured by two different dual energy X-ray absorptiometry devices and three acquisition modes in obese women</title><author>Genton, Laurence ; Karsegard, Véronique L. ; Zawadynski, Sophie ; Kyle, Ursula G. ; Pichard, Claude ; Golay, Alain ; Hans, Didier B.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c384t-9afdaffd4adf6de542fb4a9723ab9658a3d7d641ac0293a134b29f79298e840c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2006</creationdate><topic>Absorptiometry, Photon - instrumentation</topic><topic>Absorptiometry, Photon - methods</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Body Composition</topic><topic>Body Mass Index</topic><topic>Body Weight</topic><topic>DXA</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Inter-device differences</topic><topic>Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Metabolic diseases</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Obesity</topic><topic>Obesity - physiopathology</topic><topic>Osteoarticular system. Muscles</topic><topic>Radiodiagnosis. Nmr imagery. Nmr spectrometry</topic><topic>Reproducibility</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Genton, Laurence</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Karsegard, Véronique L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zawadynski, Sophie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kyle, Ursula G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pichard, Claude</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Golay, Alain</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hans, Didier B.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Clinical nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Genton, Laurence</au><au>Karsegard, Véronique L.</au><au>Zawadynski, Sophie</au><au>Kyle, Ursula G.</au><au>Pichard, Claude</au><au>Golay, Alain</au><au>Hans, Didier B.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of body weight and composition measured by two different dual energy X-ray absorptiometry devices and three acquisition modes in obese women</atitle><jtitle>Clinical nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland)</jtitle><addtitle>Clin Nutr</addtitle><date>2006-06-01</date><risdate>2006</risdate><volume>25</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>428</spage><epage>437</epage><pages>428-437</pages><issn>0261-5614</issn><eissn>1532-1983</eissn><coden>CLNUDP</coden><abstract>Weight measured by dual-energy X-ray (DXA) was shown to be increasingly underestimated in subjects over 75 kg compared to an electronic scale. This study compares body weight and composition measured by balance beam scale and three DXA acquisition modes in obese subjects. In 39 obese, body weight was measured by balance beam scale, and body weight and composition by DXA Hologic QDR4500A ® in normal (NPM) and high power mode (HPM) (Enhanced v8.26 and v8.26* softwares) and DXA GE-Lunar Prodigy ® (v6.5 software). To ensure linearity of body weight and composition measured by the different DXA acquisitions, we also measured 13 women with a body mass index (BMI) of 25–30 kg/m 2. While QDR4500A HPM overestimates scale weight by about 2 kg over the whole BMI spectrum, QDR4500A NPM underestimates scale weight as a weight-dependent response (−1.7±1.8 kg overall, −4.1±1.6 kg in morbidly obese women). These results suggest switching from one mode to the other at a specific threshold, i.e. in our study a weight of 90 kg or a BMI of 34 kg/m 2. Prodigy gives weight about similar to scale (+0.5±0.8 kg). Both Hologic acquisition modes underestimate fat mass but overestimate lean body mass compared to Prodigy. The QDR4500A NPM is inappropriate in women over 90 kg. Unfortunately, the QDR4500A HPM overestimates body weight in the range of 90–150 kg. The difference between scale and Prodigy weight remains stable throughout weight ranges. To better assess their accuracies in terms of body composition, QDR4500A NPM, HPM and Prodigy should be tested against phantoms or in vivo multi-compartment models.</abstract><cop>Kidlington</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>16375994</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.clnu.2005.11.002</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0261-5614
ispartof Clinical nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland), 2006-06, Vol.25 (3), p.428-437
issn 0261-5614
1532-1983
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68085369
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Absorptiometry, Photon - instrumentation
Absorptiometry, Photon - methods
Adult
Biological and medical sciences
Body Composition
Body Mass Index
Body Weight
DXA
Female
Humans
Inter-device differences
Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)
Medical sciences
Metabolic diseases
Middle Aged
Obesity
Obesity - physiopathology
Osteoarticular system. Muscles
Radiodiagnosis. Nmr imagery. Nmr spectrometry
Reproducibility
Sensitivity and Specificity
title Comparison of body weight and composition measured by two different dual energy X-ray absorptiometry devices and three acquisition modes in obese women
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-13T00%3A36%3A58IST&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=Comparison%20of%20body%20weight%20and%20composition%20measured%20by%20two%20different%20dual%20energy%20X-ray%20absorptiometry%20devices%20and%20three%20acquisition%20modes%20in%20obese%20women&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20nutrition%20(Edinburgh,%20Scotland)&rft.au=Genton,%20Laurence&rft.date=2006-06-01&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=428&rft.epage=437&rft.pages=428-437&rft.issn=0261-5614&rft.eissn=1532-1983&rft.coden=CLNUDP&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.clnu.2005.11.002&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E68085369%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=68085369&rft_id=info:pmid/16375994&rft_els_id=S0261561405002098&rfr_iscdi=true