Baglietto Nicolás, Vaquero-Cristóbal Raquel, Albaladejo-Saura Mario, Mecherques-Carini Malek, Esparza-Ros Francisco
International Kinanthropometry Chair, UCAM Universidad Católica San Antonio de Murcia, Murcia, Spain.
Health Sciences PhD Program, UCAM Universidad Catolica de Murcia, Murcia, Spain.
Front Nutr. 2024 Aug 19;11:1445892. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2024.1445892. eCollection 2024.
Methods of body composition estimation such as dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), anthropometry, and bioimpedance (BIA) are used for the estimation of skeletal muscle mass (SMM) and lean body mass (LBM). No previous studies have examined whether these methods generate comparable results, or whether they are valid by using DXA as the reference. The aims of the present investigation were: (a) to assess the differences between DXA, anthropometry, and BIA in the estimation of SMM and LBM, taking into consideration the impact of sex and hydration status; and (b) to examine the agreement of anthropometry and BIA as compared to DXA for the estimation of SMM and LBM.
A descriptive cross-sectional design was followed with 262 healthy young adults (159 males and 103 females). LBM and SMM were assessed by anthropometry with the formulas from Lee et al. and Kulkarni et al. for LBM; and Kerr (opt a), Kerr (opt b), Lee et al., Poortmans, Matiegka, Martin et al., Drinkwater and Ross, and Heymsfield et al. for SMM; by BIA with the formula reported by the TANITA MC-780-MA software for LBM and SMM; and DXA with the formula reported by the Hologic Horizon software for LBM, and the conversion by Kim et al. for SMM.
Significant differences were found for both SMM and LBM in kg, and percentages between most methods and formulas for the overall sample ( < 0.001-0.003) and divided by sex ( < 0.001-0.035). Hydration status did not have a significant effect on the differences between methods and formulas ( = 0.058-0.870). Lin's coefficient revealed limited agreement among the majority of formulas and methods (CCC = 0.007-0.880). The Bland-Altman analysis showed significant differences in most methods and formulas, both in the overall sample and divided by sex, when using SMM and LBM with DXA as the reference ( < 0.001-0.030).
There is a lack of agreement between methods and formulas for assessing SMM and LBM. Sex was found to be a significant factor in this analysis. Furthermore, significant differences were observed between most formulas and methods as compared to DXA, except for the equations to estimate SMM with anthropometry by Poortmans.
双能X线吸收法（DXA）、人体测量法和生物电阻抗法（BIA）等身体成分估计方法用于估计骨骼肌质量（SMM）和去脂体重（LBM）。以前没有研究检查过这些方法是否能产生可比的结果，或者以DXA作为参考时它们是否有效。本研究的目的是：（a）考虑性别和水合状态的影响，评估DXA、人体测量法和BIA在估计SMM和LBM方面的差异；（b）检查与DXA相比，人体测量法和BIA在估计SMM和LBM方面的一致性。
采用描述性横断面设计，纳入262名健康年轻成年人（159名男性和103名女性）。使用Lee等人和Kulkarni等人的公式通过人体测量法评估LBM；使用Kerr（选项a）、Kerr（选项b）、Lee等人、Poortmans、Matiegka、Martin等人、Drinkwater和Ross以及Heymsfield等人的公式评估SMM；使用TANITA MC - 780 - MA软件报告的公式通过BIA评估LBM和SMM；使用Hologic Horizon软件报告的公式通过DXA评估LBM，并使用Kim等人的转换公式评估SMM。
在总体样本中（<0.001 - 0.003）以及按性别划分时（<0.001 - 0.035），大多数方法和公式在SMM和LBM的千克数及百分比方面均存在显著差异。水合状态对方法和公式之间的差异没有显著影响（=0.058 - 0.870）。Lin系数显示大多数公式和方法之间的一致性有限（CCC = 0.007 - 0.880）。Bland - Altman分析表明，以DXA为参考使用SMM和LBM时，在总体样本和按性别划分时，大多数方法和公式都存在显著差异（<0.001 - 0.030）。
评估SMM和LBM的方法和公式之间缺乏一致性。在该分析中发现性别是一个重要因素。此外，与DXA相比，大多数公式和方法之间存在显著差异，Poortmans的人体测量法估计SMM的公式除外。
