Fogelholm M, van Marken Lichtenbelt W
UKK Institute, POB 30, FIN-33501, Tampere, Finland.
Eur J Clin Nutr. 1997 Aug;51(8):495-503. doi: 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1600448.
To examine the comparability of different methods to assess percentage body fat (BF%) against underwater weighing (UWW).
A meta-analysis on 54 papers, published in 1985-96, on healthy, adult Caucasians.
The mean BF% from different studies were treated as single data points. In addition to UWW, the studies included one or more of the following methods: 3- or 4-component model, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), dual-energy photon absorptiometry, isotope dilution, bioimpedance (BIA), skinfolds or near-infrared interactance (NIR). Within each of the methods, the analyses were done separately for different mathematical functions, techniques or instruments.
Bias (mean difference) and error (s.d. of difference) between BF% measured by UWW and the other methods.
The 4-component model gave 0.6 (95% confidence interval for the mean, CI: 0.1 to 1.2) BF% higher results than UWW. Also the 3-component model with body density and total body water (+1.4 BF%, 95% CI: +0.3 to +2.6), deuterium dilution (+1.5 BF%, 95% CI: +0.7 to +2.3), DXA by Norland (+7.2 BF%, 95% CI: 2.6 to 11.8) and BIA by Lukaski et al. (+2.0 BF%, 95% CI: 0.2 to 3.8) overestimated BF%, whereas BIA by Valhalla Scientific (-2.6 BF%, 95% CI: -4.5 to -0.6) and skinfold equations by Jackson et al. (-1.20, 95% CI: -2.3 to -0.1) showed a relative underestimation. The mean bias for the skinfold equation by Durnin & Womersley, against UWW, was 0.0 BF% (95% CI: -1.3 to 1.3). The correlation between the size of measurement and the mean difference was significant for only NIR (r = -0.77, P = 0.003).
The difference between any method and UWW is dependent on the study. However, some methods have a systematical tendency for relative over- or underestimation of BF%.
检验不同评估体脂百分比（BF%）方法与水下称重法（UWW）的可比性。
对1985 - 1996年发表的54篇关于健康成年白种人的论文进行荟萃分析。
将不同研究中的平均BF%视为单个数据点。除UWW外，这些研究还包括以下一种或多种方法：三或四成分模型、双能X线吸收法（DXA）、双能光子吸收法、同位素稀释法、生物电阻抗法（BIA）、皮褶厚度法或近红外相互作用法（NIR）。在每种方法中，针对不同的数学函数、技术或仪器分别进行分析。
UWW测量的BF%与其他方法之间的偏差（平均差值）和误差（差值的标准差）。
四成分模型得出的BF%结果比UWW高0.6（平均值的95%置信区间，CI：0.1至1.2）。同样，结合身体密度和总体水的三成分模型（+1.4 BF%，95% CI：+0.3至+2.6）、氘稀释法（+1.5 BF%，95% CI：+0.7至+2.3）、Norland公司的DXA（+7.2 BF%，95% CI：2.6至11.8）以及Lukaski等人的BIA法（+2.0 BF%，95% CI：0.2至3.8）高估了BF%，而Valhalla Scientific公司的BIA法（-2.6 BF%，95% CI：-4.5至-0.6）以及Jackson等人的皮褶厚度公式（-1.20，95% CI：-2.3至-0.1）显示相对低估。Durnin和Womersley的皮褶厚度公式相对于UWW的平均偏差为0.0 BF%（95% CI：-1.3至1.3）。仅NIR测量值大小与平均差值之间的相关性显著（r = -0.77，P = 0.003）。
任何方法与UWW之间的差异取决于具体研究。然而，一些方法在相对高估或低估BF%方面存在系统性倾向。
