Next Article in Journal
Effects of Glutamine on Gastric Emptying of Low- and High-Nutrient Drinks in Healthy Young Subjects—Impact on Glycaemia
Previous Article in Journal
Comparative Analysis of the Classification of Food Products in the Mexican Market According to Seven Different Nutrient Profiling Systems
Article Menu
Issue 6 (June) cover image

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Nutrients 2018, 10(6), 738; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu10060738

Comparison between Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry and Bioelectrical Impedance Analyses for Accuracy in Measuring Whole Body Muscle Mass and Appendicular Skeletal Muscle Mass

1
Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine and Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam 13620, Korea
2
Department of Internal Medicine, Mediplex Sejong Hospital, Incheon 21080, Korea
3
Division of Statistics, Medical Research Collaborating Center, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam 13620, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 10 April 2018 / Revised: 26 May 2018 / Accepted: 31 May 2018 / Published: 7 June 2018
Full-Text   |   PDF [1262 KB, uploaded 7 June 2018]   |  

Abstract

We evaluate the accuracy of whole body muscle mass (WBMM) and appendicular skeletal muscle mass (ASMM) assessed by bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) using an InBody770 machine (InBody, Seoul, Korea) referenced to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) in 507 people (mean age 63.7 ± 10.8 years, body mass index (BMI) 25.2 ± 3.5 kg/m2). Mean WBMMs measured by BIA and DXA were 49.3 ± 6.6 kg and 46.8 ± 6.5 kg in men and 36.1 ± 4.7 kg and 34.0 ± 4.8 kg in women, respectively. The respective effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the difference were 2.49 (2.22–2.76) for men, and 2.12 (1.91–2.33) for women. Mean ASMMs measured by BIA and DXA were 22.1 ± 3.3 kg and 19.9 ± 3.2 kg in men, and 15.3 ± 2.5 kg and 13.5 ± 2.2 kg in women, respectively. The respective effect sizes and 95% CIs for the difference were 2.26 (2.10–2.41) for men and 1.75 (1.65–1.87) for women. The BIA clearly overestimated WBMM by 2.28 kg and ASMM by 1.97 kg compared with DXA. Using BMI, gender, and fat percentage, we derive equations that improved the residuals to <2 kg between methods from 38.29% to 85.91% for WBMM and 52.78% to 97.02% for ASMM. View Full-Text
Keywords: bioelectrical impedance analysis; dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry; muscle mass bioelectrical impedance analysis; dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry; muscle mass
Figures

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited (CC BY 4.0).

Supplementary material

SciFeed

Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Lee, S.Y.; Ahn, S.; Kim, Y.J.; Ji, M.J.; Kim, K.M.; Choi, S.H.; Jang, H.C.; Lim, S. Comparison between Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry and Bioelectrical Impedance Analyses for Accuracy in Measuring Whole Body Muscle Mass and Appendicular Skeletal Muscle Mass. Nutrients 2018, 10, 738.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Nutrients EISSN 2072-6643 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top