2021•Clinical Nutrition ESPENOpen access

Validity of bioimpedance for assessment of fat-free mass in women with Rheumatoid Arthritis compared to non-rheumatic controls

Helen M. Lindqvist, Ola Wallengren, Anders Eriksson, Erik Hulander, Anna Winkvist, Linnea Bärebring

Open full text 4 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The aim was to assess the validity of bioimpedance in the assessment of fat free mass (FFM) among women and to study if the validity differs between women with and without Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA). METHODS: 38 women with RA and 24 non-rheumatic controls were included. FFM was measured in the non-fasting state using DXA (Lunar Prodigy), multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) (MF-BIA [Tanita MC-180 MA]), single-frequency BIA (SF-BIA) and bioelectrical impedance spectroscopy (BIS) (both Impedimed SFB7). BIS raw data were also used to calculate FFM from equations by Matthie, Jaffrin and Moissl. Results were compared using correlation, Bland Altman analysis, Mann Whitney U test and Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test. RESULTS: Women with RA had different body water distribution compared to women without RA (p < 0.05). Median bias in FFM assessed by bioimpedance was 0.62-7.87 kg with wide limits of agreement for all methods. Median FFM differed significantly from DXA by all bioimpedance methods except for BIS by Jaffrin. Women with RA had significantly smaller biases compared to non-rheumatic controls using BIS equations by Matthie (p = 0.012) and Moissl (p = 0.025). Correlations between FFM measured by DXA and bioimpedance (r = 0.73-0.85, all p < 0.001) did not differ between groups. The sensitivity of bioimpedance to detect low fat free mass index (FFMI) was 0-47%. CONCLUSION: The results of this study show that bioimpedance has similar validity in women with RA compared to non-rheumatic controls, despite differences in body water distribution. Agreement with DXA improved when applying specific equations, but the clinical utility of bioimpedance is questionable as all methods failed to identify low FFMI with acceptable precision. TRIAL REGISTER: Clinicaltrials.org, NCT04247009.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The aim was to assess the validity of bioimpedance in the assessment of fat free mass (FFM) among women and to study if the validity differs between women with and without Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA). METHODS: 38 women with RA and 24 non-rheumatic controls were included. FFM was measured in the non-fasting state using DXA (Lunar Prodigy), multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) (MF-BIA [Tanita MC-180 MA]), single-frequency BIA (SF-BIA) and bioelectrical impedance spectroscopy (BIS) (both Impedimed SFB7). BIS raw data were also used to calculate FFM from equations by Matthie, Jaffrin and Moissl. Results were compared using correlation, Bland Altman analysis, Mann Whitney U test and Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test. RESULTS: Women with RA had different body water distribution compared to women without RA (p < 0.05). Median bias in FFM assessed by bioimpedance was 0.62-7.87 kg with wide limits of agreement for all methods. Median FFM differed significantly from DXA by all bioimpedance methods except for BIS by Jaffrin. Women with RA had significantly smaller biases compared to non-rheumatic controls using BIS equations by Matthie (p = 0.012) and Moissl (p = 0.025). Correlations between FFM measured by DXA and bioimpedance (r = 0.73-0.85, all p < 0.001) did not differ between groups. The sensitivity of bioimpedance to detect low fat free mass index (FFMI) was 0-47%. CONCLUSION: The results of this study show that bioimpedance has similar validity in women with RA compared to non-rheumatic controls, despite differences in body water distribution. Agreement with DXA improved when applying specific equations, but the clinical utility of bioimpedance is questionable as all methods failed to identify low FFMI with acceptable precision. TRIAL REGISTER: Clinicaltrials.org, NCT04247009.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 4 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The aim was to assess the validity of bioimpedance in the assessment of fat free mass (FFM) among women and to study if the validity differs between women with and without Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA). METHODS: 38 women with RA and 24 non-rheumatic controls were included. FFM was measured in the non-fasting state using DXA (Lunar Prodigy), multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) (MF-BIA [Tanita MC-180 MA]), single-frequency BIA (SF-BIA) and bioelectrical impedance spectroscopy (BIS) (both Impedimed SFB7). BIS raw data were also used to calculate FFM from equations by Matthie, Jaffrin and Moissl. Results were compared using correlation, Bland Altman analysis, Mann Whitney U test and Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test. RESULTS: Women with RA had different body water distribution compared to women without RA (p < 0.05). Median bias in FFM assessed by bioimpedance was 0.62-7.87 kg with wide limits of agreement for all methods. Median FFM differed significantly from DXA by all bioimpedance methods except for BIS by Jaffrin. Women with RA had significantly smaller biases compared to non-rheumatic controls using BIS equations by Matthie (p = 0.012) and Moissl (p = 0.025). Correlations between FFM measured by DXA and bioimpedance (r = 0.73-0.85, all p < 0.001) did not differ between groups. The sensitivity of bioimpedance to detect low fat free mass index (FFMI) was 0-47%. CONCLUSION: The results of this study show that bioimpedance has similar validity in women with RA compared to non-rheumatic controls, despite differences in body water distribution. Agreement with DXA improved when applying specific equations, but the clinical utility of bioimpedance is questionable as all methods failed to identify low FFMI with acceptable precision. TRIAL REGISTER: Clinicaltrials.org, NCT04247009.

Key concepts: Bioelectrical impedance analysis, Medicine, Rheumatoid arthritis, Fat free mass, Limits of agreement, Bland–Altman plot, Internal medicine, Body mass index

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Validity of bioimpedance for assessment of fat-free mass in women with Rheumatoid Arthritis compared to non-rheumatic controls — Research Paper | ScholarLens