Agreement Between B-Mode Ultrasound and Air Displacement Plethysmography in Pre-Professional Ballet Dancers

Body composition assessments are useful for practitioners to monitor overall athlete health and nutritional status, particularly in aesthetic and weight-class sports that emphasize ideal body weight standards. Portable and accurate measurement tools are especially important for these assessments. Ul...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Medicine and science in sports and exercise 2020-08
Hauptverfasser: Chandler, Alexa J, Cintineo, Harry P, Sanders, David J, McFadden, Bridget A, Arent, Michelle A, Monaco, Robert, Arent, Shawn M
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Body composition assessments are useful for practitioners to monitor overall athlete health and nutritional status, particularly in aesthetic and weight-class sports that emphasize ideal body weight standards. Portable and accurate measurement tools are especially important for these assessments. Ultrasound has the potential to provide portable body composition assessments, but accuracy must be further studied. PURPOSETo assess the agreement between B-mode ultrasound and air displacement plethysmography (ADP) body composition results in pre-professional ballet dancers. METHODSMale (n=21; Mage=17.2±1.7 y; MBMI=20.5±2.0 kg/m) and female (n=27; Mage=16.1±1.4 y; MBMI=18.3±1.3 kg/m) dancers were assessed by ADP and ultrasound to determine body fat percentage (%BF), fat mass (FM), and fat-free mass (FFM). Pearson’s correlations were used to assess agreement, and paired t-tests were used to determine differences between devices (α=0.05). Ultrasound validity was assessed using standard estimate of error (SEE) and total error (TE). Bland-Altman plots were used to identify 95% limits of agreement (LOA). RESULTSAgreement was high for %BF (femalesr=0.94; malesr=0.77), FM (femalesr=0.94; malesr=0.73), and FFM (femalesr=0.95; malesr=0.99). However, ultrasound overestimated %BF and FM and underestimated FFM (P
ISSN:0195-9131
1530-0315
DOI:10.1249/MSS.0000000000002489