Portable A‐Mode Ultrasound for Body Composition Assessment in Adolescents

Ripka, Wagner Luis; Ulbricht, Leandra; Menghin, Lucas; Gewehr, Pedro Miguel

doi:10.7863/ultra.15.02026

Cited by 14 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The addition of those two sites, especially the abdominal fold in the current obese population, may have contributed to the discrepant findings. Additionally, a few recent papers have reported similar validity to the present study when using less sophisticated amplitude (A)-mode ultrasound units (Ripka , et al 2016; Smith-Ryan , et al 2014). These investigations have demonstrated US to underestimate %Fat in young normal weight adults (Ripka , et al 2016), and overestimate in overweight and obese adults (Schoenfeld , et al 2016; Smith-Ryan , et al 2014).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…Additionally, a few recent papers have reported similar validity to the present study when using less-sophisticated amplitude (A)-mode ultrasound units (Smith-Ryan et al, 2014;Ripka et al, 2016). These investigations have demonstrated US to underestimate %Fat in young normal weight adults (Ripka et al, 2016), and overestimate in overweight and obese adults (Smith-Ryan et al, 2014;Schoenfeld et al, 2016). Similarly, the B-mode US in the current study provided an overestimation of %Fat in an OW/OB sample.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Utility of ultrasound for body fat assessment: validity and reliability compared to a multicompartment criterion

Smith‐Ryan

Blue

Trexler

et al. 2016

Clin Physio Funct Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Measurement of body composition to assess health risk and prevention is expanding. Accurate portable techniques are needed to facilitate use in clinical settings. This study evaluated the accuracy and repeatability of a portable ultrasound (US) in comparison with a four-compartment criterion for per cent body fat (%Fat) in overweight/obese adults. Fifty-one participants (mean ± SD; age: 37·2 ± 11·3 years; BMI: 31·6 ± 5·2 kg m ) were measured for %Fat using US (GE Logiq-e) and skinfolds. A subset of 36 participants completed a second day of the same measurements, to determine reliability. US and skinfold %Fat were calculated using the seven-site Jackson-Pollock equation. The Wang 4C model was used as the criterion method for %Fat. Compared to a gold standard criterion, US %Fat (36·4 ± 11·8%; P = 0·001; standard error of estimate [SEE] = 3·5%) was significantly higher than the criterion (33·0 ± 8·0%), but not different than skinfolds (35·3 ± 5·9%; P = 0·836; SEE = 4·5%). US resulted in good reliability, with no significant differences from Day 1 (39·95 ± 15·37%) to Day 2 (40·01 ± 15·42%). Relative consistency was 0·96, and standard error of measure was 0·94%. Although US overpredicted %Fat compared to the criterion, a moderate SEE for US is suggestive of a practical assessment tool in overweight individuals. %Fat differences reported from these field-based techniques are less than reported by other single-measurement laboratory methods and therefore may have utility in a clinical setting. This technique may also accurately track changes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Utility of ultrasound for body fat assessment: validity and reliability compared to a multicompartment criterion

Smith‐Ryan

Blue

Trexler

et al. 2016

Clin Physio Funct Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Utter and Hagger [36] showed that the ultrasound estimates of fat-free mass was significantly correlated with the estimate from hydrostatic weighing (r=0.97). Ripka et al [37] showed that ultrasound applied in a specific regression for BF% prediction in 71 adolescents has a strong correlation (r=0.848) with DXA.…”

Section: Wagner Et Al [32] Evaluated the Validity And Reliability Ofmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prediction of body fat in male athletes from ultrasound and anthropometric measurements versus DXA

Pineau

Bouslah

2020

J Sports Med Phys Fitness

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prediction of body fat in male athletes from ultrasound and anthropometric measurements versus DXA. Abstract Background: To compare the accuracy of body fat percentage (BF%) measured by an ultrasound portable device and anthropometric measurements with a Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA) as the reference technique in male athletes. Methods: A total of 100 athletes: 16 boxers, 4 rowers, 5 gymnasts, 6 base ball players, 19 judo players, 10 taekwondo players, 7 basket-ball players, 21 wrestlers, 6 cyclists on track and 6 karate expert aged from 18 to 30 years participated. All athletes were selected from the French National Institute of Sports and Physical Education . Ultrasound measurements were made with a sonographic US BOX at the mid-thigh level. We developed a multi -linear model of body fat estimation from ultrasound and anthropometric dimensions (height, weight, waist circumference) using the DXA reference method. A cross-validation study was then performed with this linear regression on 62 males athletes proportionally stratified across the sports. Results: The best accuracy of BF was obtained using a multi-linear model from ultrasonic and anthropometric measurements with a concordance correlation ρ c = 0.941. This model was then used to estimate BF on the 62 males athletes. The concordance correlation ρ c = 0.931 and SEE =1.60. The 95% limits of agreement for individual BF% were [-4.1;3.6%] with symmetrically distributed deviations.Conclusions: Comparing to DXA, ultrasonic and anthropometric measurements are both accurate techniques to estimates BF%. Our results suggest that this regression model is practical to apply to different sports.

show abstract

“…Therefore, with a stronger echo return there is a higher amplitude spike and, thus, the fat tissue boundary can be identified (29). It is important to note that the BodyMetrix software automatically identifies the amplitude spike, and this approach showed questionable validity (3,7,11,12,19,23,26,27), but excellent reliability (12,23,27) in estimating body fat percentage. Although its excellent reliability for body fat percentage evaluation could support GT BM as a reliable tool in measuring fat thickness, information regarding its precision for different body sites is not available.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A‐Mode Ultrasound Reliability in Fat and Muscle Thickness Measurement

Ribeiro

Aguiar

Santos

et al. 2020

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Portable A‐Mode Ultrasound for Body Composition Assessment in Adolescents

Abstract: This study has shown that US applied in a specific regression for BF% prediction in adolescents

Cited by 14 publications

References 17 publications

Utility of ultrasound for body fat assessment: validity and reliability compared to a multicompartment criterion

Utility of ultrasound for body fat assessment: validity and reliability compared to a multicompartment criterion

Prediction of body fat in male athletes from ultrasound and anthropometric measurements versus DXA

A‐Mode Ultrasound Reliability in Fat and Muscle Thickness Measurement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About