Agreement between bioimpedance analysis and ultrasound scanning in body composition assessment

Abstract

ObjectivesThis study aimed at evaluating the agreement between bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) using ABC‐02 Medas and A‐mode ultrasound (AUS) using BodyMetrix™ BX2000 for fat mass (FM), fat free mass (FFM), and body fat percentage (%BF) in females.MethodsThe cross‐sectional, single‐center, observational study was performed in 206 female subjects aged 18–67 years. The examination program included measurements of body height and weight along with waist, hip circumferences, and body composition analysis. The measurements were performed by ultrasound scanner and bioimpedance analyzer.ResultsWe found that 20.9% of women were obese based on BMI (≥30 kg/m2), which was significantly lower when using a criterion based on body fat percentage (%BF ≥ 30%) measured with US (53.4%, p = .0056) or BIA (54.8%, p = .0051). At the group level, both methods were found interchangeable and showed practically negligible differences (0.1% for %BF, 0.5 kg for FM, and 0.4 kg for FFM). Agreement analysis conducted in the whole sample revealed a low level of agreement in estimating %BF (CCC = 0.72 0.77 0.82) and FFM (CCC = 0.81 0.84 0.86), and medium level of agreement in estimating FM (CCC = 0.91 0.93 0.94). The level of agreement in estimating %BF and FFM was improved to the medium level with the use of newly generated prediction equations.ConclusionThus, the proposed equations can be used for conversion of body composition results obtained by AUS into the BIA data.

Practical but Inaccurate? A-mode Ultrasound and Bioelectrical Impedance Underestimate Body Fat Percentage Compared to Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry in College Men

“…There are some powerful and accurate reference methods to distinguish body mass components, such as underwater weighing, air replacement plethysmography, neutron activation analysis, computed tomography, and dual energy x-ray densitometry (DXA) [3]. Among these, DXA is widely used as a gold standard reference method to assess accuracy and agreement of other methods [4][5][6][7][8].…”

“…In clinical settings, such as nutritional evaluation, ambulatory visits, as well as in sports, fitness or wellness contexts, a wide range of indirect methods have been used to assess body fat percentage 2 due to their low cost, they are less time-consuming, transportable, and have no side effects [3]. The most used indirect methos include calculation by analytical formulas from simple anthropometric traits, and caliper testing.…”

“…The most used indirect methos include calculation by analytical formulas from simple anthropometric traits, and caliper testing. Of note, bioelectrical impedance (BIA) and ultrasound (US) scanning have gained attention in clinical and research studies [3,6].…”

“…Once they are indirect methods, several factors may influence the result. Height, sex, age, ethnicity, total body water, body sites of US measure (protocol), nutritional status, and physical activity are among possible confounding variables to the measurements [3,9]. Furthermore, several equipment models are available which makes it difficult to establish standard protocols.…”

Practical but Inaccurate? A-Mode Ultrasound and Bioelectrical Impedance Underestimate Body Fat Percentage Compared to Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry in Male College Students

“…There are some powerful and accurate reference methods to distinguish body mass components, such as underwater weighing, air replacement plethysmography, neutron activation analysis, computed tomography and dual-energy X-ray densitometry (DXA) [ 5 ]. Among these, DXA is widely used as a gold-standard reference method to assess the accuracy and agreement of other methods [ 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ].…”