Agreement of bioelectrical resistance, reactance, and phase angle values from supine and standing bioimpedance analyzers

被引:34
|
作者
Dellinger, Jacob R. [1 ]
Johnson, Baylor A. [1 ]
Benavides, Marqui L. [1 ]
Moore, M. Lane [1 ,2 ]
Stratton, Matthew T. [1 ]
Harty, Patrick S. [1 ]
Siedler, Madelin R. [1 ]
Tinsley, Grant M. [1 ]
机构
[1] Texas Tech Univ, Dept Kinesiol & Sport Management, Energy Balance & Body Composit Lab, Lubbock, TX 79409 USA
[2] Mayo Clin, Alix Sch Med, Scottsdale, AZ USA
关键词
bioelectrical impedance analysis; bioimpedance spectroscopy; phase angle; impedance; body composition; POPULATION REFERENCE VALUES; IMPEDANCE ANALYSIS; BODY; AGE; SEX;
D O I
10.1088/1361-6579/abe6fa
中图分类号
Q6 [生物物理学];
学科分类号
071011 ;
摘要
Objective. Bioimpedance devices are commonly used to assess health parameters and track changes in body composition. However, the cross-sectional agreement between different devices has not been conclusively established. Thus, the objective of this investigation was to examine the agreement between raw bioelectrical variables (resistance, reactance, and phase angle at the 50 kHz frequency) obtained from three bioimpedance analyzers. Approach. Healthy male (n = 76, mean SD; 33.8 14.5 years; 83.9 15.1 kg; 179.4 6.9 cm) and female (n = 103, mean SD; 33.4 15.9 years; 65.6 12.1 kg; 164.9 6.4 cm) participants completed assessments using three bioimpedance devices: supine bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS), supine single-frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (SFBIA), and standing multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (MFBIA). Differences in raw bioelectrical variables between the devices were quantified via one-way analysis of variance for the total sample and for each sex. Equivalence testing was used to determine equivalence between methods. Main results. Significant differences in all bioelectrical variables were observed between the three devices when examining the total sample and males only. The devices appeared to exhibit slightly better agreement when analyzing female participants only. Equivalence testing using the total sample as well as males and females separately revealed that resistance and phase angle were equivalent between the supine devices (BIS, SFBIA), but not with the standing analyzer (MFBIA). Significance. The present study demonstrated disagreement between different bioimpedance analyzers for quantifying raw bioelectrical variables, with the poorest agreement between devices that employed different body positions during testing. These results suggest that researchers and clinicians should employ device-specific reference values to classify participants based on raw bioelectrical variables, such as phase angle. If reference values are needed but are unavailable for a particular bioimpedance analyzer, the set of reference values produced using the most similar analyzer and reference population should be selected.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 47 条
  • [1] Cross-sectional and longitudinal agreement between two multifrequency bioimpedance devices for resistance, reactance, and phase angle values
    Tinsley, Grant M.
    Moore, M. Lane
    Silva, Analiza M.
    Sardinha, Luis B.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION, 2020, 74 (06) : 900 - 911
  • [2] Cross-sectional and longitudinal agreement between two multifrequency bioimpedance devices for resistance, reactance, and phase angle values
    Grant M. Tinsley
    M. Lane Moore
    Analiza M. Silva
    Luis B. Sardinha
    European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2020, 74 : 900 - 911
  • [3] Longitudinal agreement of four bioimpedance analyzers for detecting changes in raw bioimpedance during purposeful weight gain with resistance training
    Stratton, Matthew T.
    Smith, Robert W.
    Harty, Patrick S.
    Rodriguez, Christian
    Johnson, Baylor A.
    Dellinger, Jacob R.
    Williams, Abegale D.
    White, Sarah J.
    Benavides, Marqui L.
    Tinsley, Grant M.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION, 2021, 75 (07) : 1060 - 1068
  • [4] Longitudinal agreement of four bioimpedance analyzers for detecting changes in raw bioimpedance during purposeful weight gain with resistance training
    Matthew T. Stratton
    Robert W. Smith
    Patrick S. Harty
    Christian Rodriguez
    Baylor A. Johnson
    Jacob R. Dellinger
    Abegale D. Williams
    Sarah J. White
    Marqui L. Benavides
    Grant M. Tinsley
    European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2021, 75 : 1060 - 1068
  • [5] The Biagram vector: A graphical relation between reactance and phase angle measured by bioelectrical analysis in infants
    Savino, F
    Cresi, F
    Grasso, G
    Oggero, R
    Silvestro, L
    ANNALS OF NUTRITION AND METABOLISM, 2004, 48 (02) : 84 - 89
  • [6] VALUES OF THE PHASE ANGLE BY BIOELECTRICAL IMPEDANCE: NUTRITIONAL STATUS AND PROGNOSTIC VALUE
    Llames, L.
    Baldomero, V.
    Iglesias, M. L.
    Rodota, L. P.
    NUTRICION HOSPITALARIA, 2013, 28 (02) : 286 - 295
  • [7] Agreement between supine and standing bioimpedance spectroscopy devices and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry for body composition determination
    Esco, Michael R.
    Fedewa, Michael V.
    Freeborn, Todd J.
    Moon, Jordan R.
    Wingo, Jonathan E.
    Cicone, Zack
    Holmes, Clifton J.
    Hornikel, Bjoern
    Welborn, Bailey
    CLINICAL PHYSIOLOGY AND FUNCTIONAL IMAGING, 2019, 39 (05) : 355 - 361
  • [8] Bioelectrical impedance analysis: population reference values for phase angle by age and sex
    Barbosa-Silva, MCG
    Barros, AJ
    Wang, J
    Heymsfield, SB
    Pierson, RN
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION, 2005, 82 (01): : 49 - 52
  • [9] Evaluation of algorithms for calculating bioimpedance phase angle values from measured whole-body impedance modulus
    Nordbotten, Bernt J.
    Tronstad, Christian
    Martinsen, Orjan G.
    Grimnes, Sverre
    PHYSIOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT, 2011, 32 (07)
  • [10] Phase angle from bioelectrical impedance analysis:: Population reference values by age, sex, and body mass index
    Bosy-Westphal, Anja
    Danielzik, Sandra
    Doerhoefer, Ralf-Peter
    Later, Wiebke
    Wiese, Sonja
    Mueller, Manfred J.
    JOURNAL OF PARENTERAL AND ENTERAL NUTRITION, 2006, 30 (04) : 309 - 316