» Articles » PMID: 28514075

Comparison of Different Bioelectrical Impedance Analyzers in the Prediction of Body Composition

Overview
Journal Am J Hum Biol
Specialty Biology
Date 2017 May 18
PMID 28514075
Citations 7
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

To investigate the influence of different bioelectrical impedance (BI) analyzers on the prediction of body composition from bioelectrical resistive impedance (R), 146 healthy white adults (73 men; 73 women) were studied at two independent laboratories: The University of Florida (UF) and the USDA, San Francisco. Whole body R was measured on each subject with three different BI analyzers. AT UF analyzers were: Valhalla Scientific model 1990-A (VH), RJL Systems model BIA-101 (RJL), and Medi-Fitness model 1000 (MF). At USDA analyzers were: VH, RJL, and Bioelectrical Sciences model 200Z (BES). The largest difference in R (36 ohms, P ⩽ 0.01) was noted between BES and VH at USDA. When applied to current BI prediction equations, the observed differences among analyzers resulted in differences in predicated % fat of up to 6.3% although most comparisons among mean values (79%) showed differences below 3%. Crossvalidation of the selected BI prediction equations with hydrostatistically determines body composition using the different R values revealed total errors of prediction (E) ranging from 3.6 to 9.8% fat. The prediction equations were most accurate when used with data collected on the same instrument that was to used to develop the equation (E = 3.6 to 5.3% fat). These findings indicate that different analyzers can be a significant source of variation when predicting body composition from R. To minimize this source of variation, it is recommended that BI prediction equations be used with the same type of instrument as that with which they were developed.

Citing Articles

Prognostic role of body composition in peritoneal carcinomatosis patients undergoing cytoreduction and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy.

Song Y, Bae M, Han D, Park E, Park S, Ham S World J Surg Oncol. 2023; 21(1):345.

PMID: 37891626 PMC: 10604686. DOI: 10.1186/s12957-023-03233-0.


Bioelectrical impedance analysis versus reference methods in the assessment of body composition in athletes.

Campa F, Gobbo L, Stagi S, Cyrino L, Toselli S, Marini E Eur J Appl Physiol. 2022; 122(3):561-589.

PMID: 35067750 DOI: 10.1007/s00421-021-04879-y.


Intra- and Inter-Day Reliability of Body Composition Assessed by a Commercial Multifrequency Bioelectrical Impedance Meter.

Bosquet L, Niort T, Poirault M Sports Med Int Open. 2018; 1(4):E141-E146.

PMID: 30539099 PMC: 6226074. DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-113999.


Prediction of fat-free mass by bioelectrical impedance analysis in older adults from developing countries: a cross-validation study using the deuterium dilution method.

Aleman-Mateo H, Rush E, Esparza-Romero J, Ferriolli E, Ramirez-Zea M, Bour A J Nutr Health Aging. 2010; 14(6):418-26.

PMID: 20617282 DOI: 10.1007/s12603-010-0031-z.


Validation of bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) for estimation of body composition in Black, White and Hispanic adolescent girls.

Going S, Nichols J, Loftin M, Stewart D, Lohman T, Tuuri G Int J Body Compos Res. 2007; 4(4):161-167.

PMID: 17848976 PMC: 1975957.