Han T S, Carter R, Currall J E, Lean M E
Department of Human Nutrition, University of Glasgow, Glasgow Royal Infirmary.
Eur J Clin Nutr. 1996 Aug;50(8):542-8.
To examine the effect of varying size of fat free mass (FFM) on the precision and bias of body composition prediction by bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) from four equations of Segal et al (BIA-Segal), Gray et al (BIA-Gray, Lukaski et al (BIA-Lukaski) and those from a manufacturer (BIA-EZC), by body mass index (BMI), and by skinfold methods with reference to estimation by densitometry.
73 men and 77 women aged 17-71 years, were measured for height, weight, FFM, bioelectrical impedance and age.
BIA-Segal gave the highest precision (men: R2 = 83%, women: R2 = 75%) and the least bias (men: slope = 0.88; women: slope = 0.81) of all BIA methods. There were poorer precision (R2 < or = 50%) and more bias (slope < 0.70) by BIA-Lukaski and BIA-EZC in both sexes, which were comparable to the simpler BMI method. The skinfold method gave R2 = 83% and slope = 0.84 in men and R2 = 61% and slope = 0.86 in women. Bland and Altman analysis showed BIA-Segal gave prediction of FFM within +/-6 kg of 95% confidence interval limit of agreement of that estimated by UWW in most subjects. Other BIA methods presented unacceptably large underestimates of up to 15-17 kg in FFM.
The BIA-Segal provide the best predictions of the methods tested, but using BMI-or waist-specific equations may be more practical than the original BIA-Segal method, which BIA methods are affected by large FFM, and not better than anthropometric methods in predicting FFM.
通过参考密度测定法估计值，研究无脂肪量（FFM）大小变化对生物电阻抗分析（BIA）根据西格尔等人的四个公式（BIA-西格尔）、格雷等人的公式（BIA-格雷）、卢卡斯凯等人的公式（BIA-卢卡斯凯）以及制造商提供的公式（BIA-EZC）、体重指数（BMI）和皮褶厚度法进行身体成分预测的精度和偏差的影响。
73名男性和77名年龄在17 - 71岁的女性，测量了身高、体重、FFM、生物电阻抗和年龄。
在所有BIA方法中，BIA-西格尔的精度最高（男性：R2 = 83%，女性：R2 = 75%）且偏差最小（男性：斜率 = 0.88；女性：斜率 = 0.81）。BIA-卢卡斯凯和BIA-EZC在两性中的精度较差（R2≤50%）且偏差更大（斜率<0.70），这与更简单的BMI方法相当。皮褶厚度法在男性中的R2 = 83%，斜率 = 0.84；在女性中的R2 = 61%，斜率 = 0.86。布兰德和奥特曼分析表明，在大多数受试者中，BIA-西格尔对FFM的预测在通过水下称重法（UWW）估计值的95%一致性置信区间极限的±6 kg范围内。其他BIA方法对FFM存在高达15 - 17 kg的不可接受的大幅低估。
BIA-西格尔在所测试的方法中提供了最佳预测，但使用BMI或特定于腰围的公式可能比原始的BIA-西格尔方法更实用，BIA方法受较大FFM的影响，并且在预测FFM方面并不优于人体测量方法。
