Comparison of bioelectrical impedance prediction equations for fat-free mass in a population-based sample of 75 y olds: The NORA study
Comparison of bioelectrical impedance prediction equations for fat-free mass in a population-based sample of 75 y olds: The NORA study
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/s0899-9007(03)00172-2
复制
发表时间：
2003-10-01
期刊：
影响因子：
4.4
通讯作者：
Bosaeus, I
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Dey, DK;Bosaeus, I
目的：我们评估了不同的预测方程，估计无脂肪质量（FFM）从生物电阻抗分析（BIA）在elderly.METHODS：本研究是基于106（51男55女）自由生活的75岁的受试者参加了哥德堡的北欧老龄化研究（诺拉）的一部分，在1991年和1992年的研究。根据BIA预测的FFM（FFMGOT）与根据测量全身水分和全身钾（FFMREF）估计的FFM进行了验证。根据Deurenberg等人（FFMWAG）和Roubenoff等人（FFMFHS）开发的老年人BIA预测方程计算FFM。FFM也是根据凯尔等人（FFMGEN）在广泛年龄范围的受试者中开发的公式计算的。进行Bland-Altman分析，以分别比较FFMREF与FFMGOT、FFMWAG、FFMFHS和FFMWAG。结果：与FFMREF相比，FFMFHS和FFMWAG分别低估了FFM，男性为2.6和7.9kg，女性为4.2和9 kg。FFMGEN将雌性动物的FFM低估了1.3 kg，但未低估雄性动物的FFM（平均差异，-0.04 kg）。与预期的FFMREF相比，根据在该人群中开发的BIA方程（FFMGOT）计算的FFM既没有低估也没有高估FFM。从这些方程预测的FFMGOT和FFM之间的差异是相同的幅度观察与FFMREF.CONCLUSION：不同的预测方程产生不同的值FFM。在其他人群中开发的特定年龄方程低估了FFM，而FFMGEN产生了男性FFM的无偏估计值，但在女性中没有。因此，BIA预测方程需要在研究人群中开发和验证。（C）Elsevier Inc. 2003.
OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the performance of different prediction equations to estimate fat-free mass (FFM) from bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) in the elderly.METHODS: This study was based on 106 (51 male and 55 female) free-living 75-y-old subjects who participated in the Goteborg part of the Nordic Research on Ageing (NORA) study during 1991 and 1992. FFM predicted from BIA (FFMGOT) was validated against FFM estimated from measurements of total body water and total body potassium (FFMREF). FFM was calculated from BIA prediction equations for the elderly developed by Deurenberg et al. (FFMWAG) and Roubenoff et al. (FFMFHS). FFM also was calculated from an equation developed in subjects with a wide age range by Kyle et al. (FFMGEN). Bland-Altman analysis was performed to compare FFMREF with FFMGOT,, FFMWAG, FFMFHS, and FFMWAG respectively. FFMGOT also was compared with FFM derived from these published equations.RESULTS: Compared with FFMREF, the FFMFHS and FFMWAG underestimated FFM by 2.6 and 7.9 kg in males and 4.2 and 9 kg in females, respectively. The FFMGEN underestimated FFM in females by 1.3 kg but not in males (mean difference, -0.04 kg). FFM calculated from the BIA equation developed in this population (FFMGOT) neither underestimated nor overestimated FFM as compared with FFMREF, as expected. The differences between FFMGOT and FFMs predicted from these equations were of the same magnitude as that observed with FFMREF.CONCLUSION: Different prediction equations produced different values for FFM. The age-specific equations developed in other populations underestimated FFM, whereas FFMGEN produced an unbiased estimate of FFM in males but not in females. Thus, the BIA prediction equation needs to be developed and validated in the population under study. (C)Elsevier Inc. 2003.