Cited by 15Body Composition Measurement TechniquesNutrition and Health in AgingFrailty in Older Adults

Bio-impedance analysis for appendicular skeletal muscle mass assessment in (pre-) frail elderly people

Open access
van Baar, H., Hulshof, P.J.M., Tieland, M., de Groot, C.P.G.M.·2015·Clinical Nutrition ESPEN

Abstract

Background & aims Screening populations for skeletal muscle mass (SMM) is important for early detection of sarcopenia. Our aim was to develop an age specific bio-impedance (BI) prediction equation for the assessment of appendicular skeletal muscle mass (ASMM) in (pre-) frail elderly people aged 65 and older.Methods Anthropometric, BI and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) measurements from 106 (pre-) frail elderly subjects (61 females and 45 males, aged 65-96 years) were used to derive three ASMM prediction equations using multiple regression analysis: one for single frequency BI measurements at 50 kHz (ASMM 50kHz), one for measurements at the characteristic frequency (ASMM Fc) and one for bioelectrical impedance spectroscopy (ASMM BIS). The same data was used to evaluate an existing prediction equation.Results ASMM 50kHz had the best fitting model (r 2adj = 0.923, SEE = 1.19 and a PRESS value = 163.4), followed by ASMM Fc (r 2adj = 0.915, SEE = 1.25 and a PRESS value = 175.9) and ASMM BIS (r 2adj = 0.915, SEE = 1.26 and a PRESS value = 177.1). Average ASMM measured by DEXA and both ASMM 50kHz and ASMM Fc were comparable. ASMM BIS tended to underestimate ASMM slightly. An existing prediction equation had a tendency to underestimate ASMM in people with a lower amount of ASMM and overestimate ASMM in people with a higher amount of ASMM.Conclusions ASMM 50kHz was able to measure average ASMM within our population of (pre-) frail elderly in a valid way. However, its predictive power on both individual and population level needs to be confirmed in an independent and larger (pre-) frail elderly population and across multiple institutions and ethnic groups.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.clnesp.2015.05.002

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van Baar, H., Hulshof, P. J. M., Tieland, M., & de Groot, C. P. G. M.
Affiliations
  • Wageningen University & Research (NL)
  • TiFN (NL)
Corresponding author
Hulshof, P.J.M.
Venue
Clinical Nutrition ESPEN
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-08
Volume
10
Issue
4
Pages
e147-e153
ISSN
2405-4577 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2120576594
Cited by
15
References
33
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2016: 2
FWCI
0.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Nutrition ESPEN (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Wageningen University and Research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Body Composition Measurement Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Nutrition and Health in Aging
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Frailty in Older Adults
Keywords
appendicular skeletal muscle mass, bioelectrical impedance analysis, bioimpedance spectroscopy, sarcopenia screening, frail elderly, pre-frailty, prediction equations, characteristic frequency, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, muscle mass assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review