Table 4 Validity of SMM, visceral fat and LSTpredicted from BIA equations vs respective results from MRI and DXA compared between different ethnic groups

From: Quantification of whole-body and segmental skeletal muscle mass using phase-sensitive 8-electrode medical bioelectrical impedance devices

 

SMM, VAT or LST measured by MRI or DXA

SMM, VAT or LST predicted by BIA

Biasa (mean±2 s.d.)

LOAb %

Correlation coefficient c r

Caucasians (n=32)

 SMM total body (kg)

23.3±6.2

24.5±5.9†††

1.2±2.6

11

0.05

 SMM arms (kg)

3.11±1.06

2.95±0.85†

−0.17±0.69

22

0.39‡‡‡

 SMM legs (kg)

9.90±2.40

10.97±2.17†††

1.07±2.03

20

0.05

 LST arms (kg)

5.87±1.84

5.17±1.62†††

−0.70±1.10

19

0.16‡

 LST legs (kg)

16.70±3.59

17.44±3.43††

0.74±2.32

14

0.02

 VAT (l)

2.2±1.7

2.0±1.7

−0.1±1.1

49

0.01

Asians (n=31)

 SMM total body (kg)

19.7±5.1*

21.3±5.7†††

1.6±2.2

11

0.35‡‡‡

 SMM arms (kg)

2.59±0.93*

2.56±0.83

−0.03±0.57

22

0.12

 SMM legs (kg)

8.48±1.89*

9.79±2.05†††

1.31±1.36

16

0.06

 LST arms (kg)

5.01±1.60

4.44±1.56†††

−0.57±0.52

10

0.03

 LST legs (kg)

14.59±2.68*

15.56±3.07†††

0.97±1.57

11

0.25‡‡

 VAT (l)

1.9±1.1

1.2±0.7†††

−0.7±1.1***

59

0.44‡‡‡

Afro-Americans (n=30)

 SMM total body (kg)

26.1±7.1

26.4±6.4

0.3±3.2*

12

0.18‡

 SMM arms (kg)

3.64±1.21

3.25±0.92†††

−0.38±1.04

29

0.32‡‡

 SMM legs (kg)

11.39±2.72*

11.45±2.47

0.06±1.64***

14

0.09

 LST arms (kg)

7.17±2.12*

5.67±1.74†††

−1.51±1.33***

19

0.32‡‡

 LST legs (kg)

18.70±4.36

18.16±3.82†

−0.54±2.26***

12

0.23‡‡

 VAT (l)

1.2±1.1**

1.3±1.2

0.1±1.3

104

0.04

Hispanics (n=30)

 SMM total body (kg)

21.5±5.3

23.2±5.4†††

1.7±2.3

11

0.00

 SMM arms (kg)

2.85±0.86

2.75±0.79

−0.10±0.58

20

0.08

 SMM legs (kg)

8.51±1.77*

10.45±2.04†††

1.94±2.20**

26

0.06

 LST arms (kg)

5.68±1.44

4.87±1.50†††

−0.80±0.82

14

0.02

 LST legs (kg

15.77±2.87

16.51±3.16†††

0.74±2.16

14

0.07

 VAT (l)

3.1±1.8*

2.2±1.2†††

−0.9±2.5**

81

0.21‡

  1. Abbreviations: BIA, bioelectrical impedance analysis; DXA, dual X-ray absorptiometry; LOA, limits of agreement; LST, lean soft tissue; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; SMM, skeletal muscle mass; VAT, visceral adipose tissue.
  2. *P<0.05, **P<0.01 and ***P<0.001 significantly different from Caucasians by t-test.
  3. †P<0.05, ††P<0.01 and †††P<0.001 significantly different from reference (MRI or DXA) by paired t-test.
  4. ‡P<0.05, ‡‡P<0.01 and ‡‡‡P<0.001 significant correlation.
  5. Results of the LOA analysis are given as bias and 95% limits of agreement (±2 s.d.) for SMM, and LST and VAT measured by reference method and compared with prediction by BIA.
  6. aBias was calculated as result obtained from BIA measurement minus reference method (MRI, DXA). 95% Limits of agreement was calculated as±2 s.d.
  7. bLOA are given as a percentage of mean value measured by the reference method.
  8. cCorrelation was calculated as Pearson’s correlation coefficient for the relationship between (resultreference method+resultBIA)/2 and the bias.
Back to article page