2018
DOI: 10.3390/nu10060738
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison between Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry and Bioelectrical Impedance Analyses for Accuracy in Measuring Whole Body Muscle Mass and Appendicular Skeletal Muscle Mass

Abstract: We evaluate the accuracy of whole body muscle mass (WBMM) and appendicular skeletal muscle mass (ASMM) assessed by bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) using an InBody770 machine (InBody, Seoul, Korea) referenced to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) in 507 people (mean age 63.7 ± 10.8 years, body mass index (BMI) 25.2 ± 3.5 kg/m2). Mean WBMMs measured by BIA and DXA were 49.3 ± 6.6 kg and 46.8 ± 6.5 kg in men and 36.1 ± 4.7 kg and 34.0 ± 4.8 kg in women, respectively. The respective effect sizes and 95%… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
102
0
3

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 125 publications
(109 citation statements)
references
References 43 publications
4
102
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Further confounding is added by the fact that the direction of the error associated with the comparison of different methods may not be consistent. For example, due to variation in equipment and formulas used, both overestimation and underestimation of body fat (%) by BIA in comparison to DXA have been observed, ranging between −3.2% and 6.6% . One study in the present analysis chose to use magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which is a considered gold standard method of measuring body composition, and allows for greater structure of body compartments to be analysed, although we were not able to include models beyond two‐compartments in the present analysis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Further confounding is added by the fact that the direction of the error associated with the comparison of different methods may not be consistent. For example, due to variation in equipment and formulas used, both overestimation and underestimation of body fat (%) by BIA in comparison to DXA have been observed, ranging between −3.2% and 6.6% . One study in the present analysis chose to use magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which is a considered gold standard method of measuring body composition, and allows for greater structure of body compartments to be analysed, although we were not able to include models beyond two‐compartments in the present analysis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although many studies have shown a good agreement (e.g. standard error of estimate 2.7 kg 77 ) between BIA and MRI/DEXA [77][78][79] , BIA might overestimate muscle mass 80,81 . Therefore, future studies that adopt a more rigorous approach to assessing muscle mass (MRI or DXA) may observe stronger SNP associations than those reported in the present study.…”
Section: Sarcopeniamentioning
confidence: 96%
“…We measured body height, weight, body fat mass, body fat percentage, skeletal muscle mass, skeletal muscle percentage, waist circumference, and visceral fat area. Body weight, body fat mass, body fat percentage, and skeletal muscle mass were measured by bioelectric impedance (Inbody 720 Body Composition Analyzer; InBody Japan, Tokyo, Japan) [62,63]. The subcutaneous adipose thickness of the supraclavicular, deltoid, and abdominal regions was monitored using B-mode ultrasonography (Vscan Dual Probe; GE Vingmed Ultrasound AS, Horten, Norway).…”
Section: Measurement Of Anthropometric and Circulatory Parametersmentioning
confidence: 99%