Suppr超能文献

Hologic、Lunar和Norland双能X线吸收仪与用于全身软组织测量的其他技术之间的比较。

Comparisons between Hologic, Lunar and Norland dual-energy X-ray absorptiometers and other techniques used for whole-body soft tissue measurements.

作者信息

Tothill P, Avenell A, Love J, Reid D M

机构信息

Department of Medical Physics and Medical Engineering, University of Edinburgh, Western General Hospital, UK.

出版信息

Eur J Clin Nutr. 1994 Nov;48(11):781-94.

PMID:7859696
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

Assessment of the precision and accuracy of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometers (DXA) from three manufacturers, used for measuring soft-tissue composition, and comparability with each other and other techniques.

DESIGN

Measurements of an anthropomorphic model of variable composition and thickness. 11 volunteers measured with each instrument and by underwater weighing (UWW) and three brands of bioelectric impedance analysis (BIA) apparatus.

RESULTS

New software, introduced by each manufacturer during the course of the investigation, led to changes in measured fat proportion. The precision of determination of fat proportion by DXA in the (small) model was 3-4% (coefficient of variation), with little difference between brands. In vivo precision was 2-3%. In the model, measurements of % fat differed from the nominal values, but variation with thickness was small. There were significant mean differences of total fat proportion in the volunteers between pairs of DXA instruments of 2.6-6.3% fat. The SDs of the differences were 1.8-2.9% fat. Regional differences were greater, with trunk % fat being particularly underestimated by Hologic relative to Lunar and Norland. Compared with UWW, mean % fat was the same for Hologic, but higher for Lunar and Norland. SDs of 4% demonstrated inadequate agreement. The differences varied with proportion of bone in lean tissue, questioning the assumption of constant density of lean tissue in UWW. There were no mean differences of % fat between the BIA instruments and DXA and UWW, but SDs of 3-6% suggest that BIA using these instruments does not offer an acceptable accuracy in estimating fat proportion.

CONCLUSIONS

UWW has limitations as a reference method. DXA is a useful technique, but its limitations, particularly regarding assumptions about fat distribution, must be borne in mind. The differences of fat proportion recorded by the three DXA instruments are such as to preclude interchangeability in measurements of individual subjects or in clinical trials.

摘要

目的

评估三家制造商生产的用于测量软组织成分的双能X线吸收仪(DXA)的精密度和准确性,以及它们之间的可比性和与其他技术的可比性。

设计

对具有不同成分和厚度的人体模型进行测量。11名志愿者分别使用每台仪器进行测量,并通过水下称重(UWW)和三个品牌的生物电阻抗分析(BIA)设备进行测量。

结果

在调查过程中,各制造商推出的新软件导致测量的脂肪比例发生变化。在(小型)模型中,DXA测定脂肪比例的精密度为3-4%(变异系数),各品牌之间差异不大。体内精密度为2-3%。在模型中,脂肪百分比测量值与标称值不同,但随厚度的变化较小。在志愿者中,成对的DXA仪器之间总脂肪比例的平均差异显著,为2.6-6.3%脂肪。差异的标准差为1.8-2.9%脂肪。区域差异更大,相对于Lunar和Norland,Hologic对躯干脂肪百分比的低估尤为明显。与UWW相比,Hologic的平均脂肪百分比相同,但Lunar和Norland的更高。4%的标准差表明一致性不足。差异随瘦组织中骨的比例而变化,这对UWW中瘦组织密度恒定的假设提出了质疑。BIA仪器与DXA和UWW之间的脂肪百分比没有平均差异,但3-6%的标准差表明使用这些仪器的BIA在估计脂肪比例方面没有提供可接受的准确性。

结论

UWW作为参考方法存在局限性。DXA是一种有用的技术,但必须牢记其局限性,特别是关于脂肪分布假设的局限性。三种DXA仪器记录的脂肪比例差异使得在个体受试者测量或临床试验中无法互换使用。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验