Body Composition Assessment in Mexican Children and Adolescents. Part 2: Cross-Validation of Three Bio-Electrical Impedance Methods against Dual X-ray Absorptiometry for Total-Body and Regional Body Composition

Desiree Lopez-Gonzalez,Jonathan C K Wells,Patricia Clark

doi:10.3390/nu14050965

Abstract

The aim of our study was to validate three different bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) methods for estimating body composition (BC). First, we generated BIA prediction equations based on the 4-C model as the reference method for fat mass (FM) and fat-free mass (FFM), and on dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) estimations of appendicular lean mass (ALM) and truncal fat mass (tFM). Then, we performed cross-validation in an independent BMI-, sex-, and Tanner-stratified sample of 450 children/adolescents. The three BIA methods showed good correlation and concordance with DXA BC estimations. However, agreement analyses showed significant biases, with increasing subestimations of FM and tFM, and overestimations of ALM, by all three BIA methods. In conclusion, the three BIA methods analysed in this study, provide valid estimations of BC for total body and body segments, in children and adolescents who are of a healthy weight, overweight, or obese. It should be noted that this validation cannot be extrapolated to other BIA methods.

Highlights

Body composition (BC) assessment refers to the estimation of the relative distribution of the different components that constitute a human body [1]
While all bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) methods showed good correlation and concordance to dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) BC estimations, we found that BIA handrail had the lowest concordance
The results show strong correlations in BC estimates between the BIA methods and DXA (r > 0.95); measurement bias was significant in the whole-body estimates

Summary

Introduction

Body composition (BC) assessment refers to the estimation of the relative distribution of the different components that constitute a human body (e.g., fat, lean mass, bone, and water mass) [1]. Normal variation of BC occurs in association with gender, age, pubertal status, and ethnicity; ideally, population-specific reference values should be available. There are several methods to assess BC, ranging from simple to complex approaches, each of which has advantages, limitations, and some degree of measurement or estimation error [4]. The gold standard of BC measurement is cadaver analysis; all in vivo techniques may be considered approximations of this criterion [3,5]. The four-component (4-C) model represents one of the most accurate in vivo approaches of BC estimation, though it is expensive and usually available only in the context of specialized research [4,6]

Objectives

Methods

Conclusion