Journal Mobile Options
Table of Contents
Vol. 1, No. 6, 2008
Issue release date: December 2008
Add to my selection Citation Download
Obes Facts 2008;1:319–324
(DOI:10.1159/000176061)
Original Article

Accuracy of Bioelectrical Impedance Consumer Devices for Measurement of Body Composition in Comparison to Whole Body Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Dual X-Ray Absorptiometry

Bosy-Westphal A.a · Later W.a · Hitze B.a · Sato T.b · Kossel E.c · Glüer C.-C.c · Heller M.c · Müller M.J.a
a Institut für Humanernährung und Lebensmittelkunde, Christian-Albrechts-Universität, Kiel, Germany bOmron Healthcare Co., Ltd, Kyoto, Japan c Klinik für Diagnostische Radiologie, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel,Germany Obes Facts 2008;1:319–324 (DOI:10.1159/000176061)

Abstract

Objective: To compare body composition determined by bioelectrical impedance (BIA) consumer devices against criterion estimates determined by whole body magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) in healthy normal weight, overweight and obese adults. Methods: In 106 adults (54 females, 52 males, age 54.2 ± 16.1 years, BMI 25.8 ± 4.4 kg/m2) fat mass (FM), skeletal muscle mass (SM), total body bone-free lean mass (TBBLM), and level of visceral fat mass (VF) were estimated by 3 single-frequency bipedal (foot-to-foot) and one tretrapolar BIA device, and compared to body composition measured by MRI and DXA. Bland-Altman and simple linear regression analyses were used to determine agreement between methods. Results: %FMDXA, SMMRI or TBBLMDXA showed good relative and absolute agreement with two bipolar and one tetrapolar instrument (r2 = 0.92–0.96; all p < 0.001; mean bias <1.5 %FM and <1 kg SM or TBBLM) and less relative and absolute agreement for another bipolar device (r2 = 0.82 and 0.84, mean bias ∼3 %FM and ∼3 kg SM). The 95% limits of agreement (bias ± 2 SD) were narrowest for the tetrapolar device (–6.59 to 4.61 %FM and –4.62 to 4.74 kg SM) and widest for bipolar instruments (up to –14.54 to 8.58 %FM and –9.52 to 3.92 kg SM). Systematic biases for %FM were found for all bipedal devices, but not for the tetrapolar instrument. Conclusion: Because of the lower agreement between foot-to-foot BIA and DXA or MRI for the assessment of body composition in individuals, tetrapolar electrode arrangement should be preferred for individual or public use. Bipolar devices provide accurate results for field studies with group estimation.

 goto top of outline Author Contacts

Dr. Anja Bosy-Westphal, Institut für Humanernährung und Lebensmittelkunde, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Düsternbrooker Weg 17, 24105 Kiel, Germany, abosyw@nutrfoodsc.uni-kiel.de


 goto top of outline Article Information

Published online: December 2, 2008
Number of Print Pages : 6


 goto top of outline Publication Details

Obesity Facts (The European Journal of Obesity)

Vol. 1, No. 6, Year 2008 (Cover Date: December 2008)

Journal Editor: Hebebrand J. (Essen)
ISSN: 1662-4025 (Print), eISSN: 1662-4033 (Online)

For additional information: http://www.karger.com/OFA


Copyright / Drug Dosage

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in goverment regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.