Meshtel A V, Antonov A G, Zhilkin A N, Rybakova P D, Miroshnikov A B, Smolensky A V
Russian University of Sports "SCOLIPE", 105122, Moscow, Russian Federation.
Center for Sports Innovative Technologies and National Team Training, Department of Sports of the City of Moscow, 129272, Moscow, Russian Federation.
Vopr Pitan. 2024;93(2):95-104. doi: 10.33029/0042-8833-2024-93-2-95-104. Epub 2024 Mar 5.
Body composition assessment is often used in clinical practice to assess and monitor nutritional status. For example, body fat mass is a predictor of metabolic diseases, and for an athlete it is a criterion of performance. "Gold standard" - the method of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry - in contrast to bioelectrical impedance analysis, is difficult to apply in everyday clinical practice. Therefore, it becomes relevant to compare the consistency of measured body fat mass using densitometry and bioimpedanceometry. of the study was to perform a comparative analysis of body fat mass estimated by bioimpedanceometry (two bioelectric impedance devices and three household scales with a function of determining body composition) and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. . Sixteen healthy, physically active adults aged 25 [23; 26] years, male (n=7) and female (n=9), participated in the cross-sectional study. Body composition was assessed under standard conditions in the morning, after a 12-hour fast, using densitometry (Stratos Dr X-ray densitometer) and bioimpedanceometry [bioelectric impedance devices: Medass ABC-01, Diamant AIST (with manufacturer's predictive equations); household scales with a function of determining body composition: Tanita BC-718, Picooc Mini, Scarlett SC-216]. Statistical analysis was performed using Statistica 10 package (StatSoft, USA), and included Friedman's chi-criterion, Lin's correlation concordance coefficient, Bland-Altman method, Spearman's correlation coefficient, and Wilcoxon's criterion with Bonferroni correction for multiple studies. . None of the bioimpedanceometry devices studied showed a relationship (Bland- Altman coefficient >0.2) or consistency (Lin's correlation concordance coefficient <0.9) when compared to densitometry, although Spearman correlation was moderate for Tanita BC-718 (r=0.603, p<0.05), Diamant AIST (r=0.641, p<0.01) and Scarlett SC-216 (r=0.609, p<0.05), and notable for Medass ABC-01 (r=0.841, p<0.01) and Picooc Mini (r=0.718, p<0.01). . This study found that no bioelectrical impedance device has consistency with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in assessing body fat mass. Since the accuracy of body fat mass measurement is critical in body composition diagnosis, the assessment results obtained by bioimpedanceometry should be interpreted with caution.
身体成分评估在临床实践中经常用于评估和监测营养状况。例如，体脂量是代谢疾病的一个预测指标，对于运动员来说，它是运动表现的一个标准。与生物电阻抗分析相比，“金标准”——双能X线吸收法——在日常临床实践中难以应用。因此，比较使用密度测定法和生物电阻抗法测量的体脂量的一致性就变得很有意义。本研究的目的是对通过生物电阻抗法（两种生物电阻抗设备和三种具有身体成分测定功能的家用秤）和双能X线吸收法估算的体脂量进行对比分析。16名年龄在25[23；26]岁的健康、有体育活动的成年人，男性（n = 7）和女性（n = 9），参与了这项横断面研究。在标准条件下，于早晨禁食12小时后，使用密度测定法（Stratos Dr X线密度计）和生物电阻抗法[生物电阻抗设备：Medass ABC - 01、Diamant AIST（带有制造商的预测方程）；具有身体成分测定功能的家用秤：Tanita BC - 718、Picooc Mini、Scarlett SC - 216]评估身体成分。使用Statistica 10软件包（美国StatSoft公司）进行统计分析，包括Friedman卡方检验、Lin相关一致性系数、Bland - Altman方法、Spearman相关系数以及针对多项研究采用Bonferroni校正的Wilcoxon检验。与密度测定法相比，所研究的生物电阻抗设备均未显示出相关性（Bland - Altman系数>0.2）或一致性（Lin相关一致性系数<0.9），尽管Tanita BC - 718（r = 0.603，p<0.05）、Diamant AIST（r = 0.641，p<0.01）和Scarlett SC - 216（r = 0.609，p<0.05）的Spearman相关性中等，而Medass ABC - 01（r = 0.841，p<0.01）和Picooc Mini（r = 0.718，p<0.01）的相关性显著。本研究发现，在评估体脂量方面没有生物电阻抗设备与双能X线吸收法具有一致性。由于体脂量测量的准确性在身体成分诊断中至关重要，因此应谨慎解释通过生物电阻抗法获得的评估结果。
