Cited by 77Body Composition Measurement TechniquesNutrition and Health in AgingElectrical and Bioimpedance Tomography

Validity of bioelectrical impedance analysis in estimation of fat-free mass in colorectal cancer patients

Open access
Ræder, Hanna, Kværner, Ane Sørlie, Henriksen, Christine, Florholmen, Geir, Henriksen, Hege Berg, Bøhn, Siv Kjølsrud, Paur, Ingvild, Smeland, Sigbjørn +1 more·2018·Clinical Nutrition

Abstract

Background & aims Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) is an accessible and cheap method to measure fat-free mass (FFM). However, BIA estimates are subject to uncertainty in patient populations with altered body composition and hydration. The aim of the current study was to validate a whole-body and a segmental BIA device against dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients, and to investigate the ability of different empiric equations for BIA to predict DXA FFM (FFM DXA ). Methods Forty-three non-metastatic CRC patients (aged 50–80 years) were enrolled in this study. Whole-body and segmental BIA FFM estimates (FFM whole-bodyBIA , FFM segmentalBIA ) were calculated using 14 empiric equations, including the equations from the manufacturers, before comparison to FFM DXA estimates. Results Strong linear relationships were observed between FFM BIA and FFM DXA estimates for all equations (R 2 = 0.94–0.98 for both devices). However, there were large discrepancies in FFM estimates depending on the equations used with mean differences in the ranges −6.5–6.8 kg and −11.0–3.4 kg for whole-body and segmental BIA, respectively. For whole-body BIA, 77% of BIA derived FFM estimates were significantly different from FFM DXA , whereas for segmental BIA, 85% were significantly different. For whole-body BIA, the Schols* equation gave the highest agreement with FFM DXA with mean difference ±SD of −0.16 ± 1.94 kg ( p = 0.582). The manufacturer's equation gave a small overestimation of FFM with 1.46 ± 2.16 kg ( p < 0.001) with a tendency towards proportional bias ( r = 0.28, p = 0.066). For segmental BIA, the Heitmann* equation gave the highest agreement with FFM DXA (0.17 ± 1.83 kg ( p = 0.546)). Using the manufacturer's equation, no difference in FFM estimates was observed (−0.34 ± 2.06 kg ( p = 0.292)), however, a clear proportional bias was detected ( r = 0.69, p < 0.001). Both devices demonstrated acceptable ability to detect low FFM compared to DXA using the optimal equation. Conclusion In a population of non-metastatic CRC patients, mostly consisting of Caucasian adults and with a wide range of body composition measures, both the whole-body BIA and segmental BIA device provide FFM estimates that are comparable to FFM DXA on a group level when the appropriate equations are applied. At the individual level (i.e. in clinical practice) BIA may be a valuable tool to identify patients with low FFM as part of a malnutrition diagnosis.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.clnu.2016.12.028

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ræder, H., Kværner, A. S., Henriksen, C., Florholmen, G., Henriksen, H. B., Bøhn, S. K., Paur, I., Smeland, S., & Blomhoff, R.
Affiliations
  • Oslo University Hospital (NO)
  • University of Oslo (NO)
Corresponding author
Blomhoff, Rune
Venue
Clinical Nutrition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-02
Volume
37
Issue
1
Pages
292-300
ISSN
0261-5614 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2575449066
Cited by
77
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 1
FWCI
5.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Nutrition (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • Research Council of Norway (190329)
  • Norwegian Cancer Society (3924/3927)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Body Composition Measurement Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Nutrition and Health in Aging
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Electrical and Bioimpedance Tomography
Keywords
bioelectrical impedance analysis, fat-free mass, colorectal cancer, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, validation, empirical equations, body composition, hydration, proportional bias, nutritional assessment, cancer cachexia, sarcopenia
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Anthropometry, Body Composition, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Colorectal Neoplasms, Reproducibility of Results, Absorptiometry, Photon, Electric Impedance, Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures

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