Dataset Information

Accuracy of specific BIVA for the assessment of body composition in the United States population.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Bioelectrical impedance vector analysis (BIVA) is a technique for the assessment of hydration and nutritional status, used in the clinical practice. Specific BIVA is an analytical variant, recently proposed for the Italian elderly population, that adjusts bioelectrical values for body geometry.

Objective

Evaluating the accuracy of specific BIVA in the adult U.S. population, compared to the 'classic' BIVA procedure, using DXA as the reference technique, in order to obtain an interpretative model of body composition.

Design

A cross-sectional sample of 1590 adult individuals (836 men and 754 women, 21-49 years old) derived from the NHANES 2003-2004 was considered. Classic and specific BIVA were applied. The sensitivity and specificity in recognizing individuals below the 5(th) and above the 95(th) percentiles of percent fat (FMDXA%) and extracellular/intracellular water (ECW/ICW) ratio were evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Classic and specific BIVA results were compared by a probit multiple-regression.

Results

Specific BIVA was significantly more accurate than classic BIVA in evaluating FMDXA% (ROC areas: 0.84-0.92 and 0.49-0.61 respectively; p = 0.002). The evaluation of ECW/ICW was accurate (ROC areas between 0.83 and 0.96) and similarly performed by the two procedures (p = 0.829). The accuracy of specific BIVA was similar in the two sexes (p = 0.144) and in FMDXA% and ECW/ICW (p = 0.869).

Conclusions

Specific BIVA showed to be an accurate technique. The tolerance ellipses of specific BIVA can be used for evaluating FM% and ECW/ICW in the U.S. adult population.

SUBMITTER: Buffa R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3590169 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Accuracy of specific BIVA for the assessment of body composition in the United States population.

Buffa Roberto R Saragat Bruno B Cabras Stefano S Rinaldi Andrea C AC Marini Elisabetta E

PloS one 20130306 3

<h4>Background</h4>Bioelectrical impedance vector analysis (BIVA) is a technique for the assessment of hydration and nutritional status, used in the clinical practice. Specific BIVA is an analytical variant, recently proposed for the Italian elderly population, that adjusts bioelectrical values for body geometry.<h4>Objective</h4>Evaluating the accuracy of specific BIVA in the adult U.S. population, compared to the 'classic' BIVA procedure, using DXA as the reference technique, in order to obtai ...[more]

PMID: 23484033

Similar Datasets

Project description:Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) is currently the most commonly used method in clinical practice to measure body composition. However, the bioelectrical impedance analyzer is not designed according to different countries, races, and elderly populations. Because different races may have different body compositions, a prediction model for the elderly population in Taiwan should be developed to avoid population bias, thereby improving the accuracy of community evaluation surveys.Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) was used as a standard method for comparison, and impedance analysis was used for the development of a highly accurate predictive model that is suitable for assessing the body composition of elderly people.This study employed a cross-sectional design and recruited 438 elderly people who were undergoing health examinations at the health management center in the Tri-Service General Hospital as study subjects. Basic demographic variables and impedance analysis values were used in four predictive models, namely, linear regression, random forest, support vector machine (SVM), and eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) models, to predict DXA body composition. The data from 354 study subjects were used to develop the predictive model, while the data from 84 study subjects were used to validate the accuracy of the predictive model.The body composition of elderly people as estimated by InBody 720 was highly correlated with that estimated by DXA. The correlation coefficient between InBody 720 and DXA for muscle mass was 0.969, and that for fat mass was 0.935. Consistency analysis results showed that InBody 720 tends to underestimate muscle mass and fat mass. A comparison of the accuracy of the linear regression, random forest, SVM, and XGBoost models showed that the linear regression has the highest accuracy. The correlation coefficient between the new model and DXA for muscle mass and fat mass were 0.977 and 0.978, respectively.The new predictive model can be used to monitor the nutrition status of elderly people and identify people with sarcopenia in the community.

Project description:Protein Energy Wasting (PEW) in hemodialysis (HD) patients is a multifactorial condition due to specific pathology-related pathogenetic mechanisms, leading to loss of skeletal muscle mass in HD patients. Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging still represent the gold standard techniques for body composition assessment. However, their widespread application in clinical practice is difficult and body composition evaluation in HD patients is mainly based on conventional anthropometric nutritional indexes and bioelectrical impedance vector analysis (BIVA). Little data is currently available on ultrasound (US)-based measurements of muscle mass and fat tissue in this clinical setting. The purpose of our study is to ascertain: (1) if there are differences between quadriceps rectus femoris muscle (QRFM) thickness and abdominal/thigh subcutaneous fat tissue (SFT) measured by US between HD patients and healthy subjects; (2) if there is any correlation between QRFM and abdominal/thigh SFT thickness by US, and BIVA/conventional nutritional indexes in HD patients. We enrolled 65 consecutive HD patients and 33 healthy subjects. Demographic and laboratory were collected. The malnutrition inflammation score (MIS) was calculated. Using B-mode US system, the QRFM and SFT thicknesses were measured at the level of three landmarks in both thighs (superior anterior iliac spine, upper pole of the patella, the midpoint of the tract included between the previous points). SFT was also measured at the level of the periumbilical point. The mono frequency (50 KHz) BIVA was conducted using bioelectrical measurements (Rz, resistance; Xc, reactance; adjusted for height, Rz/H and Xc/H; PA, phase angle). 58.5% were men and the mean age was 69 (SD 13.7) years. QRFM and thigh SFT thicknesses were reduced in HD patients as compared to healthy subjects (p < 0.01). Similarly, also BIVA parameters, expression of lean body mass, were lower (p < 0.001), except for Rz and Rz/H in HD patients. The average QRFM thickness of both thighs at top, mid, lower landmarks were positively correlated with PA and body cell mass (BCM) by BIVA, while negatively correlated with Rz/H (p < 0.05). Abdominal SFT was positively correlated with PA, BCM and basal metabolic rate (BMR) (p < 0.05). Our study shows that ultrasound QRFM and thigh SFT thicknesses were reduced in HD patients and that muscle ultrasound measurements were significantly correlated with BIVA parameters.

Project description:BackgroundSmart scales are increasingly used at home by patients to monitor their body weight and body composition, but scale accuracy has not often been documented.ObjectiveThe goal of the research was to determine the accuracy of 3 commercially available smart scales for weight and body composition compared with dual x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) as the gold standard.MethodsWe designed a cross-sectional study in consecutive patients evaluated for DEXA in a physiology unit in a tertiary hospital in France. There were no exclusion criteria except patient declining to participate. Patients were weighed with one smart scale immediately after DEXA. Three scales were compared (scale 1: Body Partner [Téfal], scale 2: DietPack [Terraillon], and scale 3: Body Cardio [Nokia Withings]). We determined absolute error between the gold standard values obtained from DEXA and the smart scales for body mass, fat mass, and lean mass.ResultsThe sample for analysis included 53, 52, and 48 patients for each of the 3 tested smart scales, respectively. The median absolute error for body weight was 0.3 kg (interquartile range [IQR] -0.1, 0.7), 0 kg (IQR -0.4, 0.3), and 0.25 kg (IQR -0.10, 0.52), respectively. For fat mass, absolute errors were -2.2 kg (IQR -5.8, 1.3), -4.4 kg (IQR -6.6, 0), and -3.7 kg (IQR -8.0, 0.28), respectively. For muscular mass, absolute errors were -2.2 kg (IQR -5.8, 1.3), -4.4 kg (IQR -6.6, 0), and -3.65 kg (IQR -8.03, 0.28), respectively. Factors associated with fat mass measurement error were weight for scales 1 and 2 (P=.03 and P<.001, respectively), BMI for scales 1 and 2 (P=.034 and P<.001, respectively), body fat for scale 1 (P<.001), and muscular and bone mass for scale 2 (P<.001 for both). Factors associated with muscular mass error were weight and BMI for scale 1 (P<.001 and P=.004, respectively), body fat for scales 1 and 2 (P<.001 for both), and muscular and bone mass for scale 2 (P<.001 and P=.002, respectively).ConclusionsSmart scales are not accurate for body composition and should not replace DEXA in patient care.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03803098; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03803098.

Dataset Information

Accuracy of specific BIVA for the assessment of body composition in the United States population.

Background

Objective

Design

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Accuracy of specific BIVA for the assessment of body composition in the United States population.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets