Litcius/Paper detail

Precision and accuracy of bioelectrical impedance analysis devices in supine versus standing position with or without retractable handle in Caucasian subjects

Katrin Hamilton-James, Tinh‐Hai Collet, Claude Pichard, Laurence Genton, Y.M. Dupertuis

2021Clinical Nutrition ESPEN22 citationsDOIOpen Access PDF

Abstract

Background & aimsBioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) could be facilitated in subjects who are able to stand by using scales without (BIAstd4) or with a retractable handle (BIAstd8), provided that they are as precise as BIA devices commonly used in the supine position in the hospital setting (BIAsup). This observational prospective cross-sectional study aimed to compare the precision and accuracy of BIAstd4, BIAstd8 and BIAsup in a Caucasian population.MethodsFat mass percentage (FM%) was measured in 160 healthy Caucasian subjects (80 men/80 women) aged 20–60 years, with a body mass index (BMI) ≥18.5 and < 30 kg/m2, using the HAGRID Body Fat Scales (Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., China) in BIAstd4 or BIAstd8 mode, and the Nutriguard-M (Data Input GmbH, Germany) as BIAsup. Intra-unit and inter-unit precisions of each device were evaluated by calculating the coefficients of variation (CV%) of 3 measurements with 3 different units of each device. Inter-device precisions were evaluated with Pearson correlations, Bland–Altman plots, and repeated measures ANOVA followed by post-hoc Bonferroni tests. Accuracy of these BIA devices was estimated in a subgroup of 16 subjects, using comparison with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA).ResultsThe study population was 40 ± 12 years old, with a body height and weight of 171 ± 10 cm and 72.2 ± 11.5 Kg, respectively. All three devices were very precise with intra-unit CV% of 0.5%, 0.9%, and 0.3% and inter-unit CV% of 0.5%, 1.1%, and 0.4% for BIAstd4, BIAstd8 and BIAsup, respectively. Inter-device precision was ±2.1% for BIAstd4/BIAsup, ±1.9% for BIAstd8/BIAsup, and ±1.3% for BIAstd8/BIAstd4. Bland–Altman plots showed bias ±1.96 SD of 0.3 ± 5.2% for BIAstd4/BIAsup, −0.4 ± 4.5% for BIAstd8/BIAsup and −0.6 ± 3.1% for BIAstd8/BIAstd4. Compared to DXA, all three devices tended to underestimate FM% in men with low BMI, while only BIAstd4 and BIAstd8 tended to overestimate FM% in women with high BMI. FM% measurement accuracy was ±2.6% for BIAsup/DXA, ±3.3% for BIAstd4/DXA, and ±3.4% for BIAstd8/DXA.ConclusionsBoth BIAstd4 and BIAstd8 show a good intra- and inter-unit precision close to BIAsup, making them suitable for rapid body composition assessment in non-bedridden subjects. However, all these three devices should not be used interchangeably, because BIAstd4 and BIAstd8 tend to accentuate FM% changes during body composition monitoring compared to BIAsup and DXA.Trial registrationClinicalTrial.gov no. NCT04504799.

Topics & Concepts

Bioelectrical impedance analysisSupine positionMedicineBonferroni correctionCoefficient of variationLimits of agreementBody mass indexPopulationBody positionAnalysis of varianceNuclear medicinePost-hoc analysisRepeated measures designBody fat percentagePhysical therapyStatisticsOrthodonticsMathematicsInternal medicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationEnvironmental healthBody Composition Measurement TechniquesElectrical and Bioimpedance TomographyNutrition and Health in Aging
Precision and accuracy of bioelectrical impedance analysis devices in supine versus standing position with or without retractable handle in Caucasian subjects | Litcius