Comparison between dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and skinfolds thickness in assessing body fat in anorexia nervosa before and after weight restoration

2012 ◽  
Vol 31 (6) ◽  
pp. 911-916 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marwan El Ghoch ◽  
Marta Alberti ◽  
Chiara Milanese ◽  
Nino Carlo Battistini ◽  
Massimo Pellegrini ◽  
...  
2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Wohlfahrt-Veje ◽  
Jeanette Tinggaard ◽  
Annette Mouritsen ◽  
Casper Hagen ◽  
Mikkel Grunnet ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Body Fat ◽  
X Ray ◽  

Author(s):  
Jessica S M da Silva ◽  
Simone Biesek ◽  
Audrin S Vojciechowski ◽  
Victoria Z C Borba ◽  
Estela I Rabito ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 186-193 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandra P Frost ◽  
Tracy Norman Giest ◽  
Allison A Ruta ◽  
Teresa K Snow ◽  
Mindy Millard-Stafford

Background: Body composition is important for health screening, but appropriate methods for unilateral lower extremity amputees have not been validated. Objectives: To compare body mass index adjusted using Amputee Coalition equations (body mass index–Amputee Coalition) to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in unilateral lower limb amputees. Study design: Cross-sectional, experimental. Methods: Thirty-eight men and women with lower limb amputations (transfemoral, transtibial, hip disarticulation, Symes) participated. Body mass index (mass/height2) was compared to body mass index corrected for limb loss (body mass index–Amputee Coalition). Accuracy of classification and extrapolation of percent body fat with body mass index was compared to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Results: Body mass index–Amputee Coalition increased body mass index (by ~ 1.1 kg/m2) but underestimated and mis-classified 60% of obese and overestimated 100% of lean individuals according to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Estimated mean percent body fat (95% confidence interval) from body mass index–Amputee Coalition (28.3% (24.9%, 31.7%)) was similar to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry percent body fat (29.5% (25.2%, 33.7%)) but both were significantly higher ( p < 0.05) than percent body fat estimated from uncorrected body mass index (23.6% (20.4%, 26.8%)). However, total errors for body mass index and body mass index–Amputee Coalition converted to percent body fat were unacceptably large (standard error of the estimate = 6.8%, 6.2% body fat) and the discrepancy between both methods and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry was inversely related ( r = −0.59 and r = −0.66, p < 0.05) to the individual’s level of body fatness. Conclusions: Body mass index (despite correction) underestimates health risk for obese patients and overestimates lean, muscular individuals with lower limb amputation. Clinical relevance Clinical recommendations for an ideal body mass based on body mass index–Amputee Coalition should not be relied upon in lower extremity amputees. This is of particular concern for obese lower extremity amputees whose health risk might be significantly underestimated based on body mass index despite a “correction” formula for limb loss.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document