Department of Health, Kinesiology, and Recreation, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States of America.
School of Community Health Sciences, University of Nevada Reno, Reno, Nevada, United States of America.
PLoS One. 2019 Mar 20;14(3):e0214029. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214029. eCollection 2019.
The purpose of this study was to examine the agreement in percent body fat estimates among 7 laboratory and field assessments against dual-emission x-ray absorptiometry using equivalence testing. Participants were 437 college students (mean age = 19.2±0.6 years). Dual-emission x-ray absorptiometry was used as the criterion with hydrostatic weighing, skinfold thickness, air displacement plethysmography, near infrared reactance, and three methods of bioelectrical impedance analysis examined as surrogate assessments. Relative agreement was examined using intraclass correlation coefficients. Group level agreement was examined using equivalence testing. Individual-level agreement was assessed using Mean Absolute Percent Error and Bland-Altman Plots. Single measure intraclass correlation coefficient scores ranged from 0.71-0.80. Hydrostatic weighing, skinfold thickness, air displacement plethysmography, and 4-electrode bioelectrical impedance analysis showed statistical equivalence with the criterion using a 10% Equivalence Interval with absolute mean differences ranging from 1.0%-4.9% body fat. Mean Absolute Percent Error ranged from 11.7% using skinfold thickness to 21.9% using Omron (hand-held) bioelectrical impedance analysis. Limits of Agreement were heteroscedastic across the range of mean scores compared to dual-emission x-ray absorptiometry, with greater mean differences observed at higher levels of percent body fat. Hydrostatic weighing, skinfold thickness, air displacement plethysmography, and 4-electrode bioelectrical impedance analysis showed strong evidence for statistical equivalence with dual-emission x-ray absorptiometry in a sample of college students.
本研究旨在使用等效性检验,检验 7 种实验室和现场评估方法与双能 X 射线吸收法在体脂百分比估计中的一致性。参与者为 437 名大学生(平均年龄=19.2±0.6 岁)。双能 X 射线吸收法作为金标准,同时检测静水称重法、皮褶厚度、空气置换体积描记法、近红外反射率以及生物电阻抗分析的 3 种方法。使用组内相关系数评估相对一致性。使用等效性检验评估组水平一致性。使用平均绝对百分比误差和 Bland-Altman 图评估个体水平一致性。单测量组内相关系数评分范围为 0.71-0.80。静水称重法、皮褶厚度、空气置换体积描记法和 4 电极生物电阻抗分析与金标准具有统计学等效性,使用 10%等效区间,绝对平均差异范围为 1.0%-4.9%体脂。使用皮褶厚度的平均绝对百分比误差范围为 11.7%,使用 Omron(手持式)生物电阻抗分析的为 21.9%。与双能 X 射线吸收法相比,平均得分范围内的一致性界限存在异方差,体脂百分比越高,平均差异越大。在大学生样本中,静水称重法、皮褶厚度、空气置换体积描记法和 4 电极生物电阻抗分析与双能 X 射线吸收法具有统计学等效性。