Wing David, Godino Job G, Vo Anh, Moran Ryan, Graham Sarah, Nichols Jeanne F
Exercise and Physical Activity Resource Center (EPARC), Department of Family Medicine and Public Health, University of California, San Diego (UCSD), La Jolla, CA, USA; UCSD Bone Densitometry School, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Exercise and Physical Activity Resource Center (EPARC), Department of Family Medicine and Public Health, University of California, San Diego (UCSD), La Jolla, CA, USA.
J Clin Densitom. 2021 Apr-Jun;24(2):287-293. doi: 10.1016/j.jocd.2020.06.004. Epub 2020 Jun 25.
Utilization of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry is increasing in clinical settings and the fitness industry as a viable tool to assess total and regional body composition, including visceral adiposity. Previous research using small samples (<50) has described several pitfalls in patient positioning, scan acquisition, and/or analysis that alter regional body composition values. Our aim was to quantify the largest probable error in measures of total, android, gynoid, and visceral fat caused by incorrect placement of the head cut-line, in a large sample of adults. Total body images (N = 436) from 196 women and 67 men (20-85 years) scanned on a GE Lunar Prodigy densitometer were analyzed using enCORE software in 2 ways: (1) placing the head cut-line just beneath the bony protuberance of the chin according to manufacturer recommendation (correct method); (2) placing the head cut-line at the lowest point below the chin and just above the soft tissue at the shoulders (incorrect method). All other cut-lines were fixed. Mean differences in adiposity were examined using Lin's concordance correlation coefficient; equality of means and variances were evaluated using Bradley-Blackwood F-tests. The limits of agreement were displayed as Bland-Altman plots and calculated as the mean difference ±1.96 times the standard deviation of the difference. Correlation coefficients for paired comparisons of adiposity for correct vs incorrect cut-line placement ranged from 0.983-0.999 for all variables (all p < 0.001). Significant mean differences were 172 ± 130, 201 ± 168, 65 ± 122, and -143 ± 336 g for android, gynoid, visceral, and total fat mass, respectively (all p < 0.0001). These differences exceeded our site's least significant change in 66%, 37%, 29%, and 4% of participant scans for android, gynoid, visceral, and total fat mass, respectively. Our findings underscore the importance of careful review of the manufacturer's auto analysis and consistency in conducting serial scans to ensure accurate and precise measures of regional body fat.
在临床环境和健身行业中,双能X线吸收法作为评估全身和局部身体成分(包括内脏脂肪)的一种可行工具,其使用正在增加。以往使用小样本(<50)的研究描述了患者体位摆放、扫描采集和/或分析中的几个缺陷,这些缺陷会改变局部身体成分值。我们的目的是在大量成年人样本中,量化因头部切割线放置不正确而导致的全身、男性型、女性型和内脏脂肪测量中最大可能误差。使用enCORE软件以两种方式分析了在GE Lunar Prodigy骨密度仪上扫描的196名女性和67名男性(20 - 85岁)的全身图像(N = 436):(1)根据制造商建议将头部切割线置于下巴骨突出下方(正确方法);(2)将头部切割线置于下巴下方最低点且肩部软组织上方(错误方法)。所有其他切割线固定。使用林氏一致性相关系数检查肥胖程度的平均差异;使用布拉德利 - 布莱克伍德F检验评估均值和方差的相等性。一致性界限以布兰德 - 奥特曼图显示,并计算为平均差异±1.96倍差异的标准差。对于所有变量,正确与错误切割线放置的肥胖程度配对比较的相关系数范围为0.983 - 0.999(所有p < 0.001)。男性型、女性型、内脏和全身脂肪量的显著平均差异分别为172 ± 130、201 ± 168、65 ± 122和 - 143 ± 336克(所有p < 0.0001)。这些差异分别超过了我们研究点在66%、37%、29%和4%的参与者扫描中男性型、女性型、内脏和全身脂肪量的最小显著变化。我们的研究结果强调了仔细审查制造商的自动分析以及在进行系列扫描时保持一致性以确保准确和精确测量局部身体脂肪的重要性。