Neovius Martin, Hemmingsson Erik, Freyschuss Bo, Uddén Joanna
Obesity Unit, m73, Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institute, Karolinska University Hospital, SE-141 86 Stockholm, Sweden.
Obesity (Silver Spring). 2006 Oct;14(10):1731-8. doi: 10.1038/oby.2006.199.
To compare estimates of total and truncal fatness from eight-electrode bioelectrical impedance analysis equipment (BIA(8)) with those from DXA in centrally obese women. The secondary aim was to examine BMI and waist circumference (WC) as proxy measures for percentage total body fat (%TBF) and truncal body fat percentage (tr%BF).
This was a cross-sectional study of 136 women (age, 48.1 +/- 7.7 years; BMI, 30.4 +/- 2.9 kg/m(2); %TBF(DXA), 46.0 +/- 3.7%; WC, 104 +/- 8 cm). Fatness was measured by DXA and Tanita BC-418 equipment (Tanita Corp., Tokyo, Japan). Agreement among methods was assessed by Bland-Altman plots, and regression analysis was used to evaluate anthropometric measures as proxies for total and abdominal fatness.
The percentage of overweight subjects was 41.9%, whereas 55.9% of the subjects were obese, as defined by BMI, and all subjects had a WC exceeding the World Health Organization cut-off point for abdominal obesity. Compared with DXA, the BIA(8) equipment significantly underestimated total %BF (-5.0; -3.6 to -8.5 [mean; 95% confidence interval]), fat mass (-3.6; -3.9 to -3.2), and tr%BF (-8.5; -9.1 to -7.9). The discrepancies between the methods increased with increasing adiposity for both %TBF and tr%BF (both p < 0.001). Variation in BMI explained 28% of the variation in %TBF(DXA) and 51% of %TBF(BIA8). Using WC as a proxy for truncal adiposity, it explained only 18% of tr%BF(DXA) variance and 27% of tr%BF(BIA8) variance. The corresponding figures for truncal fat mass were 49% and 35%, respectively. No significant age effects were observed in any of the regressions.
BIA(8) underestimated both total and truncal fatness, compared with DXA, with higher dispersion for tr%BF than %TBF. The discrepancies increased with degree of adiposity, suggesting that the accuracy of BIA is negatively affected by obesity.
比较八电极生物电阻抗分析设备(BIA(8))与双能X线吸收法(DXA)对中心性肥胖女性全身及躯干脂肪含量的评估结果。次要目的是检验体重指数(BMI)和腰围(WC)作为全身脂肪百分比(%TBF)和躯干体脂百分比(tr%BF)替代指标的情况。
这是一项对136名女性的横断面研究(年龄48.1±7.7岁;BMI 30.4±2.9kg/m²;%TBF(DXA) 46.0±3.7%;WC 104±8cm)。采用DXA和日本东京百利达公司的BC - 418设备测量脂肪含量。通过Bland - Altman图评估不同方法之间的一致性,并使用回归分析评估人体测量指标作为全身及腹部脂肪含量替代指标的情况。
根据BMI定义,超重受试者的比例为41.9%,肥胖受试者的比例为55.9%,所有受试者的腰围均超过世界卫生组织腹部肥胖的切点。与DXA相比,BIA(8)设备显著低估了全身%BF(-5.0;-3.6至-8.5[均值;95%置信区间])、脂肪量(-3.6;-3.9至-3.2)和tr%BF(-8.5;-9.1至-7.9)。两种方法之间的差异随着%TBF和tr%BF肥胖程度的增加而增大(均p<0.001)。BMI的变化解释了%TBF(DXA)变化的28%和%TBF(BIA8)变化的51%。将WC作为躯干肥胖的替代指标,它仅解释了tr%BF(DXA)方差的18%和tr%BF(BIA8)方差的27%。躯干脂肪量的相应数字分别为49%和35%。在任何回归分析中均未观察到显著的年龄效应。
与DXA相比,BIA(8)低估了全身及躯干脂肪含量,tr%BF的离散度高于%TBF。差异随着肥胖程度的增加而增大,表明肥胖对BIA的准确性有负面影响。