Cited by 104Body Composition Measurement TechniquesNutrition and Health in AgingBone health and osteoporosis research

A comparison of three methods to assess body composition.

Tewari, Nilanjana, Awad, Sherif, Macdonald, Ian A., Lobo, Dileep N.·2018·Nutrition

Abstract

Objective The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of measurements of body composition made using dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), analysis of computed tomography (CT) scans at the L3 vertebral level, and bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA).Methods DXA, CT, and BIA were performed in 47 patients recruited from two clinical trials investigating metabolic changes associated with major abdominal surgery or neoadjuvant chemotherapy for esophagogastric cancer. DXA was performed the week before surgery and before and after commencement of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. BIA was performed at the same time points and used with standard equations to calculate fat-free mass (FFM). Analysis of CT scans performed within 3 mo of the study was used to estimate FFM and fat mass (FM).Results There was good correlation between FM on DXA and CT (r 2 = 0.6632; P < 0.0001) and FFM on DXA and CT (r 2 = 0.7634; P < 0.0001), as well as FFM on DXA and BIA (r 2 = 0.6275; P < 0.0001). Correlation between FFM on CT and BIA also was significant (r 2 = 0.2742; P < 0.0001). On Bland-Altman analysis, average bias for FM on DXA and CT was 0.2564 with 95% limits of agreement (LOA) of -9.451 to 9.964. For FFM on DXA and CT, average bias was -0.1477, with LOA of -8.621 to 8.325. For FFM on DXA and BIA, average bias was -3.792, with LOA of -15.52 to 7.936. For FFM on CT and BIA, average bias was -2.661, with LOA of -22.71 to 17.39.Conclusion Although a systematic error underestimating FFM was demonstrated with BIA, it may be a useful modality to quantify body composition in the clinical situation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.nut.2017.09.005

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Whole-body-based techniques such as anthropometry and BIA are viable alternatives for clinical evaluation because they are non-invasive, portable, and relatively low cost.

    “Whole-body-based techniques, such as anthropometry and bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), used as predictors in regression equations, developed and validated using DXA as the reference method, are a viable alternative for clinical evaluation since they are non-invasive, ideal for quantitative estimates of FFM and FM based on mathematical models, portable, and relatively low cost (9, 18, 19).”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 26 · Cited by 104

Authors
Tewari, N., Awad, S., Macdonald, I. A., & Lobo, D. N.
Affiliations
  • University of Nottingham (GB)
  • Royal Derby Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Lobo, Dileep N.
Venue
Nutrition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-03
Volume
47
Pages
1-5
ISSN
0899-9007 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2760622449
Cited by
104
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 7
FWCI
6.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Medical Research Council (MR/P021220/1)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Body Composition Measurement Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Nutrition and Health in Aging
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Bone health and osteoporosis research
Keywords
body composition, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, computed tomography, bioelectrical impedance analysis, fat-free mass, fat mass, method comparison, gastroesophageal cancer, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, abdominal surgery, measurement accuracy
MeSH terms
Aged, Anthropometry, Body Composition, Clinical Trials as Topic, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Reproducibility of Results, Cohort Studies, Absorptiometry, Photon, Electric Impedance

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