2022•Medicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseRequires access
Agreement Between Different Body Composition Methods And Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry In Adults
Tathiany Jéssica Ferreira, Carolina Ribeiro Pessanha, Gabriel Gonçalves da Costa, Victor Zaban Bittencourt, Igor C. Salvador, Ana Clara Rodrigues de Assumpção, João Pedro B. Sacom, Renata R. M. da Silva, Márcio Leandro Ribeiro de Souza, Anna Paola Trindade Rocha Pierucci
Open publisher page 0 citations
Abstract
The assessment of body composition is often used in clinical practice for nutritional assessment and monitoring. The gold standard method, dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), is hardly feasible in routine clinical practice. The bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) method is a common applicable alternative because it is accessible and easy to use. In addition, methods that use artificial intelligence to assess body composition through photos (AI-Photo) began to emerge as cheaper alternatives than BIA. However, few studies have evaluated the agreement of different methods with DXA. PURPOSE: Evaluate the agreement between one IA-Photo method, three BIA devices and DXA for estimating body fat percent (BF%) in adults. METHODS: A total of 215 Brazilian adults, aged between 18 and 65 years, BMI from 18 to 35 kg/m2 and sedentary and physically active. Volunteers were evaluated by the IA-Photo method (Shaped, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil), bioimpedance scales of the inBody 270 (Biospace, California, USA), inBCA F-500 (Shenzhen, China), Omron HBF-514 (Kyoto, Japan) models and DXA (GE, Madison, USA) at an interval of 1 minute between the methods. The method of Bland-Altman (BA) was used to evaluate the identify the 95% limits of agreement and BIAS between IA-Photo method and BIA devices with DXA. Lin's Concordance Correlation Coefficient (CCC) was utilized to evaluate concordance between each method with DXA. RESULTS: Confidence interval values are represented by the dotted line and the BIAS by the dashed line (Figure 1). The BIAS value of the %error between methods and DXA ranged from 3.33 (Shaped) to 12.2 (inBody-270). CCC was 0.96; 0.93; 0.91 and 0.45 for the Shaped, Omron, inBody-270 and inBCA F-500 methods. The inBody and Omron model BIAs presented a significant p value for the linear regression in the BA plot, indicating a proportion bias in relation to the BF%. CONCLUSIONS: Shaped and Omron had greater agreement with the DXA compared to inBody-270 and inBCA F-500 for estimating BF%.