Detail
Article
Online article
FT
Medvik - BMC
  • Something wrong with this record ?

Whole-body dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry demonstrates better reliability than segmental body composition analysis in college-aged students

P. Kutáč, V. Bunc, M. Sigmund,

. 2019 ; 14 (4) : e0215599. [pub] 20190422

Language English Country United States

Document type Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Persistent link   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc20006436

Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is rapidly becoming more accessible and popular as a technique to monitor body composition. The reliability of DXA has been examined extensively using a number of different methodological approaches. This study sets up to investigate the accuracy of measuring the parameters of body composition (BC) by means of the whole-body and the segmental DXA method analysis with the typical error of measurement (TEM) that allows for expressing the error in the units of measure. The research was implemented in a group of 63 participants, all of whom were university students. Thirty-eight males (22.6±2.9 years, average body mass 77.5±8.4 kg) and 25 females (21.4±2.0 years, average body mass 58.6±7.2 kg) were recruited. The measured parameters included body mass (BM), fat-free mass (FFM), body fat (BF), bone mineral content (BMC), bone mineral density (BMD). For the whole-body analysis, the determined TEM was: BM at the level of 0.12 kg in females and 0.29 kg in males; BF 0.25kg and 0.44% females, 0.52 kg and 0.66% males; FFM 0.24 kg females and 0.42 kg males; BMC 0.02 kg females and males; BMD 0.01g/cm2 females and males. The TEM values in the segmental analysis were: BF within the range of 0.04-0.28 kg and 0.68-1.20% in females, 0.10-0.36 kg and 0.72-1.94% in males; FFM 0.08-0.41 kg females and 0.17-0.86 males, BMC 0.00-0.02 kg females and 0.01-0.02 kg males in relation to the body segment (upper limb, trunk, lower limb). The BMD value was at the level of 0.01-0.02g/cm2. The study results showed high reliability in measuring body composition parameters using the DXA method. The whole-body analysis showed a higher accuracy of measurement than the segmental. Only the changes that are greater than the TEM, or the upper bound (95%) of the confidence interval of the measurement can be considered demonstrable when interpreting repeated measurements.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc20006436
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20200518132642.0
007      
ta
008      
200511s2019 xxu f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1371/journal.pone.0215599 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)31009495
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxu
100    1_
$a Kutáč, Petr $u Human Motion Diagnostics Center, University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic.
245    10
$a Whole-body dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry demonstrates better reliability than segmental body composition analysis in college-aged students / $c P. Kutáč, V. Bunc, M. Sigmund,
520    9_
$a Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is rapidly becoming more accessible and popular as a technique to monitor body composition. The reliability of DXA has been examined extensively using a number of different methodological approaches. This study sets up to investigate the accuracy of measuring the parameters of body composition (BC) by means of the whole-body and the segmental DXA method analysis with the typical error of measurement (TEM) that allows for expressing the error in the units of measure. The research was implemented in a group of 63 participants, all of whom were university students. Thirty-eight males (22.6±2.9 years, average body mass 77.5±8.4 kg) and 25 females (21.4±2.0 years, average body mass 58.6±7.2 kg) were recruited. The measured parameters included body mass (BM), fat-free mass (FFM), body fat (BF), bone mineral content (BMC), bone mineral density (BMD). For the whole-body analysis, the determined TEM was: BM at the level of 0.12 kg in females and 0.29 kg in males; BF 0.25kg and 0.44% females, 0.52 kg and 0.66% males; FFM 0.24 kg females and 0.42 kg males; BMC 0.02 kg females and males; BMD 0.01g/cm2 females and males. The TEM values in the segmental analysis were: BF within the range of 0.04-0.28 kg and 0.68-1.20% in females, 0.10-0.36 kg and 0.72-1.94% in males; FFM 0.08-0.41 kg females and 0.17-0.86 males, BMC 0.00-0.02 kg females and 0.01-0.02 kg males in relation to the body segment (upper limb, trunk, lower limb). The BMD value was at the level of 0.01-0.02g/cm2. The study results showed high reliability in measuring body composition parameters using the DXA method. The whole-body analysis showed a higher accuracy of measurement than the segmental. Only the changes that are greater than the TEM, or the upper bound (95%) of the confidence interval of the measurement can be considered demonstrable when interpreting repeated measurements.
650    _2
$a absorpční fotometrie $x metody $7 D015502
650    _2
$a tuková tkáň $x diagnostické zobrazování $7 D000273
650    _2
$a dospělí $7 D000328
650    _2
$a složení těla $x fyziologie $7 D001823
650    _2
$a tělesná konstituce $x fyziologie $7 D001824
650    _2
$a kostní denzita $x fyziologie $7 D015519
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a dolní končetina $x diagnostické zobrazování $7 D035002
650    _2
$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
650    _2
$a reprodukovatelnost výsledků $7 D015203
650    _2
$a studenti $x statistika a číselné údaje $7 D013334
650    _2
$a univerzity $7 D014495
650    _2
$a horní končetina $x diagnostické zobrazování $7 D034941
650    _2
$a mladý dospělý $7 D055815
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
700    1_
$a Bunc, Václav $u Faculty of Physical Education and Sport, Charles University, Praha, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Sigmund, Martin $u Application Centre BALUO, Faculty of Physical Culture, Palacký University, Olomouc, Czech Republic.
773    0_
$w MED00180950 $t PloS one $x 1932-6203 $g Roč. 14, č. 4 (2019), s. e0215599
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31009495 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
990    __
$a 20200511 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20200518132642 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1525294 $s 1096492
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2019 $b 14 $c 4 $d e0215599 $e 20190422 $i 1932-6203 $m PLoS One $n PLoS One $x MED00180950
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20200511

Find record

Citation metrics

Archiving options