Reliability and Agreement of Various InBody Body Composition Analyzers as Compared to Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry in Healthy Men and Women
Reliability and Agreement of Various InBody Body Composition Analyzers as Compared to Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry in Healthy Men and Women
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jocd.2018.10.008
复制
发表时间：
2020-07-01
影响因子：
2.5
通讯作者：
McLester, John R.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
McLester, Cherilyn N.;Nickerson, Brett S.;McLester, John R.
背景：多年来，生物电阻抗分析已经发展到包括使用多个频率和阻抗测量来提高身体成分估计的准确性和可靠性。本研究的目的是评估InBody230、InBody720和InBody770测量普通人群体脂率（BF%）、脂肪质量（FM）和无脂质量（FFM）的可靠性，并将结果与双能x射线吸收仪（DXA）进行比较。方法：共有31名男性和36名女性参加了为期2天的测试，间隔24-72小时。每次访问包括DXA扫描，并使用InBody(230), InBody（720）和InBody（770）进行分析。结果：所有3种生物电阻抗装置（InBody（230）、InBody（720）和InBody(770)）在男性和女性中都是可靠的，BF%（>= 0.98）、FM（>= 0.98）和FFM（>= 0.99）的类内相关系数较高，BF%（0.77% ~ 0.99%）、FM （0.54 ~ 0.87 kg）和FFM （0.58 ~ 0.84 kg）的测量标准误差较低，BF%（2.12% ~ 2.73%）、FM （1.49 ~ 2.39 kg）和FFM （1.60 ~ 2.32 kg）的测量差异最小。当检查3个InBody分析仪与DXA之间的一致性时，所有比较都存在系统偏差（BF%和FM的低估以及FFM的高估）（p < 0.05），而女性的FM和男性的FFM存在比例偏差。然而，根据估计的标准误差和95%的一致性界限，所有比较的个体误差都很小。结论：InBody分析仪产生的个体误差较小，表明这些方法可以在没有DXA的情况下作为替代方法；然而，从业者应该意识到所有比较的系统偏差以及女性FM和男性FFM的比例偏差。此外，研究结果显示，在评估BF%、FM和FFM时，研究级模型InBody（720）和InBody（770）比便携式InBody（230）增加的效益最小。
Background: Bioelectrical impedance analysis has evolved over the years to include the use of multiple frequencies and impedance measurements to improve the accuracy and reliability of body composition estimates. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the reliability of the InBody230, InBody720, and InBody770 to measure body fat percent (BF%), fat mass (FM), and fat-free mass (FFM) in the general population and to compare results to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Methods: A total of 31 males and 36 females participated in 2 d of testing separated by 24-72 h. Each visit consisted of a DXA scan, and analysis with the InBody(230), InBody(720), and InBody(770). Results: All 3 bioelectrical impedance devices (InBody(230), InBody(720), and InBody(770)) were reliable in men and women as indicated by high intraclass correlation coefficients for BF% (>= 0.98), FM (>= 0.98), and FFM (>= 0.99) and low standard error of measurement for BF% (0.77%-0.99%), FM (0.54-0.87 kg), and FFM (0.58-0.84 kg) and minimum difference for BF% (2.12%-2.73%), FM (1.49-2.39 kg), and FFM (1.60-2.32 kg), respectively. When examining the agreement between the 3 InBody analyzers with DXA, systematic bias (underestimation of BF% and FM and overestimation of FFM) was present for all comparisons (p < 0.05) while proportional bias was present for FM in women and FFM in men. However, there was small individual error for all comparisons as indicated by the standard error of estimate and 95% limits of agreement. Conclusion: The InBody analyzers produce small individual error, which suggest these methods can be used as a surrogate when DXA is not available; however, practitioners should be aware of the systematic bias for all comparisons and proportional bias for FM in women and FFM in men. Furthermore, findings revealed that the research grade models, InBody(720) and InBody(770), added minimal benefit over the portable InBody(230) when assessing BF%, FM, and FFM.