Agreement between supine and standing bioimpedance spectroscopy devices and dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry for body composition determination

• Published in: Clinical physiology and functional imaging Vol. 39; no. 5; pp. 355 - 361
• Main Authors: Esco, Michael R., Fedewa, Michael V., Freeborn, Todd J., Moon, Jordan R., Wingo, Jonathan E., Cicone, Zack, Holmes, Clifton J., Hornikel, Bjoern, Welborn, Bailey
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.09.2019
• Subjects: Absorptiometry, Photon; Adiposity; Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Background radiation; bioimpedance spectroscopy; Body Composition; Body fat; Body Mass Index; Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry; Electric Impedance; fat‐free mass; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Patient Positioning - methods; Position measurement; Predictive Value of Tests; Reproducibility of Results; Spectroscopy; Spectrum Analysis; Standing Position; Supine Position; X-rays; Young Adult; dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry; fat-free mass; adiposity; bioimpedance spectroscopy; body fat
• ISSN: 1475-0961; 1475-097X; 1475-097X
• DOI: 10.1111/cpf.12585

Summary Background Research comparing bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS) to dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry (DXA) is limited, especially with newer BIS devices that take measures in a standing position instead of the traditional supine position. Purpose The purpose of this study was to compare a standing BIS device (BISSTA) and a supine BIS device (BISSUP) to DXA for measuring body fat percentage (BF%), fat mass (FM) and fat‐free mass (FFM) in a cohort of male and female subjects displaying a wide range of ages and BMI levels. Methods Ninety‐five subjects (30 ± 15 years, 170 ± 8·0 cm, 72·6 ± 14·8 kg) participated in the study. Body composition measures were taken from BISSTA, BISSUP and DXA during a single visit to the laboratory following an 8‐ to 12‐h fast in a euhydration state. Results Supine BIS device and BISSTA produced r‐values >0·91 and low SEE values for all measurements compared to DXA. Effect sizes were ‘trivial’ for FFM comparing both BISSUP and BISSTA to DXA (<0·1) and ‘small’ for FM and BF% (<0·39). Compared to DXA, BISSTA resulted in lower total (TE) and constant errors/mean differences (CE) (TE < 3·6 kg, CE < −1·82 kg) versus BISSUP (TE < 4·35 kg, CE < −3·10 kg) for FFM. Conclusion Fat‐free mass values for BISSTA resulted in the most comparable measurements to DXA with no mean differences and the lowest total error and effect size. However, the findings indicated both BIS devices may be acceptable alternatives to DXA for BF%, FM and FFM in clinical practice.