An investigation of the accuracy and reliability of body composition assessed with a handheld electrical impedance myography device

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the body fat per cent (BF%) assessed with a unique handheld electrical impedance myography (EIM) device, along with other popular methods, to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Participants included 33 males (aged 24.3 ± 4.6 years) and 38 females (aged 25.3 ± 8.9 years) who completed 2 visits separated by 24-72 h. The assessments included DXA, bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), skinfold measures (SKF), and three separate EIM measurements. No significant differences in BF% (P > 0.05) were found between all EIM assessments when compared against DXA for both males and females for each visit. All methods showed no significant differences in BF% (P > 0.05) between days within themselves. Across both days, the standard error of the estimate (SEE) for the EIM measurements ranged from 2.66% to 3.15%, the SEE for BIA was 2.80 and 2.85, and for SKF was 2.90 and 2.82. The 95% limits of agreement ranged from ±5.34% to ±6.38% for EIM measurements and were highest for SKF (±7.42% and ±7.47%). The total error for both days was largest for SKF (5.20% and 5.35%) and lowest for the EIM measurements (2.48-3.24%). This investigation supports use of a handheld EIM device as an accurate and reliable method of estimating BF% compared to DXA in young, apparently healthy individuals with BF% in the range of 10-22% for males and 20-32% in females and suggests this EIM device be considered a viable alternative to other established field measurements in this population.

Body fat percent assessment between electrical impedance myography and dual X‐ray absorptiometry

“…To date, few studies have compared BF% assessed by the handheld Skulpt Chisel EIM device in comparison to DXA (Graybeal et al, ; McLester, ), reporting no significant total BF% differences between devices in active young adults and bodybuilders (EIM vs DXA BF% ranges: 23.43‐23.85% vs 23.33‐23.39%, respectively). Similarly, the current study also observed no significant differences in total BF% between the handheld Skulpt Chisel EIM device (24.09 ± 8.55%) and DXA (24.44 ± 7.15%).…”

“…To date, few studies have compared BF% assessed by the handheld Skulpt Chisel EIM device in comparison to DXA (Graybeal et al, 2018;McLester, 2018), reporting no significant total BF% differences between devices in active young adults and bodybuilders (EIM vs DXA BF% ranges: 23.43-23.85% vs 23. 33-23.39%, respectively).…”

“…To date, few studies have examined the accuracy of EIM's measurements in a healthy population (Anderson, Bean, Holt, Keel, & Bouxsein, 2014;Graybeal et al, 2018 ;McLester, 2018), and fewer studies have assessed the accuracy of the Skulpt Chisel in measuring total-body measurement compared to DXA (Graybeal et al, 2018;McLester, 2018). Finally, no studies have compared regional BF% measurements obtained using EIM in comparison to regional BF% measured by DXA.…”

“…Specifically, the Skulpt Chisel (Skulpt, Inc., San Francisco, California) was developed as a handheld EIM device and was created to evaluate total and regional BF% and muscle quality (ie, measure of muscle relative to its size). This device is different from BIA in that EIM sends an electrical current through each muscle, while BIA sends an electrical current through the entire body to estimate BF% (McLester, ; Rutkove, ). For widespread use of this EIM device, however, it is first important to assess this EIM devices' accuracy in comparison to the gold standard body composition method, DXA.…”

Measurement and Comparision of Multi-Electrode Placement for Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis

“…This discrepancy between the two measurements leads to the questioning of which device is more precise. The Skulpt Chisel was found to be an accurate and reliable method for EIM measurements [6]. In practice, bioelectrical impedance analysis, such as that performed by the Bodystat Multiscan 5000, can overestimate fat-free mass and under estimate fat mass and body fat percentage [7].…”