Validity of anthropometry- and impedance-based equations for the prediction of total body water as measured by deuterium dilution in Cameroonian haemodialysis patients

Validation of anthropometric and bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) equations to predict total body water in a group of Cameroonian preschool children using deuterium dilution method

“…This result agree with previous studies showing that anthropometry and BIA prediction equations used for TBW and body composition have the tendency to be population-specific and that inappropriate used of published prediction equations can lead to systematic errors and inaccurate estimations [26,27]. In this regard, Tzamaloukas et al [28] showed that each anthropometric measurement included in anthropometric equations for the prediction of body composition estimate a unique body composition which is for the average subject of the population in whom the equations were developed, while Haroun et al [29] showed for the BIA model that variation of the relative body geometry between ethnic groups confound the relative distribution between weight and impedance among limb and trunk.…”

Development and validation of anthropometric predictive equations that estimate the total body water and fat-free mass in Tunisian adults

“…All equations for the estimation of TBW, except that of Slater and Preston, showed significant differences in all subjects, and in men and women. Indeed, TBW predicted by the equations of Hume and Weyers [ 11 ], Watson et al [ 12 ], Medoua et al [ 14 ] and Chumlea et al [ 15 ] significantly ( p < 0.0001) overestimated TBW in the total sample with a positive bias value (2.50, 1.67, 5.34 and 5.15 kg, respectively for each equation). However, Slater’s equation gave a non-significant difference in all subjects ( p = 0.94), but in terms of sex, the Slater inbuilt equation significantly ( p = 0.0089) overestimated TBW in women with a bias of 1.06 ± 4.00 kg and ( p = 0.0018) underestimate TBW in men.…”

“…None of the previously published equations for the prediction of TBW and FFM were valid to use in Tunisian adults except for Slater and Preston equation [ 13 ] for the prediction of TBW, and Janmahasation et al [ 16 ] for the prediction of FFM in all population. In fact, the application of Bland and Altman test showed a significant ( p < 0.01) proportional bias with DDT among both men and women for the equations of Hume and Weyers [ 11 ], Watson et al [ 12 ], Medoua et al [ 14 ] and Chumlea et al [ 15 ]. However, the Bland and Altman approach in the current study revealed high bias values in all subjects (1.27, 1.39, 1.14 and 5.42 kg; ( p < 0.01)), especially in women (2.50, 1.67, 5.34 and 5.15 kg; ( p < 0.0001)).…”

“…Those equations were chosen according to their frequent mention in the literature and the age range of the population. Thus, five TBW equations were tested for the prediction of TBW: Hume and Weyers [ 11 ], Watson et al [ 12 ], Slater and Preston [ 13 ], Medoua et al [ 14 ], Chumlea et al [ 15 ] and one equation for the determination of FFM: Janmahasation et al [ 16 ] (Table 1 ).…”

“…To date, a few prediction equations have been developed to estimate body composition using anthropometric variables from a simple measurement of height and weight combined with information on gender and age. However, it has been described that these equations are not valid in other populations with a different ethnic origin [11][12][13][14][15][16].…”