4.2 Article

Estimation of Body Composition Depends on Applied Device in Patients Undergoing Major Abdominal Surgery

期刊

NUTRITION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE
卷 30, 期 2, 页码 249-256

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1177/0884533614542614

关键词

body composition; body fat distribution; bioelectrical impedance analysis; fat-free mass; fat-free mass index; fat mass; fat mass index; surgery

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) is a method used to estimate body compartments such as fat-free mass (FFM) and fat mass (FM). Two BIA devices, a single-frequency BIA (SF-BIA) device and a bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS) approach, were compared to evaluate their reliability and to study whether their estimations resulted in similar classifications of body composition. Materials and Methods: In a prospective observational study, body composition was estimated by SF-BIA and BIS in 123 adult patients scheduled for major abdominal surgery. Measurement agreement for the continuous variables FFM and FM were analyzed by using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), the mean differences, and their limits of agreement. Measurement differences were also visualized by Bland-Altman plots. For the dichotomized FFM index (FFMI) and FM index (FMI), interobserver agreement was calculated using Cohen kappa statistics; the McNemar test was performed to compare the paired proportions. Results: Agreement for the continuous variables was almost perfect for FM (.86; 95% confidence interval [CI],.80-.90) and substantial for FFM (.78; 95% CI, .70-.84). For the dichotomous variables, the agreement was substantial for FMI (.67; 95% CI,.51-.83) and slight for FFMI (.19; 95% CI, .01-.37). BIS classified a larger proportion having a low FFMI and a high FMI. Conclusion: There were good ICCs between SF-BIA and BIS for FFM and FM. However, the mean differences were substantial, whereas the classification of body composition based on FFMI and FMI was influenced by the device. Therefore, BIA devices are not interchangeable.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据