Influence of localized edema on whole-body and segmental bioelectrical impedance

Nutrition ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 24 (6) ◽  
pp. 569-574 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marta Codognotto ◽  
Michele Piazza ◽  
Paolo Frigatti ◽  
Antonio Piccoli
Keyword(s):  
Bioelectrical Impedance ◽  
Whole Body ◽  
Segmental Bioelectrical Impedance

Comparison between whole-body and segmental bioelectrical impedance for body composition

2021 ◽  
Vol 46 ◽  
pp. S603
Author(s):  
N.T. Bellafronte ◽  
L. Vega-Piris ◽  
G.B. Cuadrado ◽  
P.G. Chiarello
Keyword(s):  
Body Composition ◽  
Bioelectrical Impedance ◽  
Whole Body ◽  
Segmental Bioelectrical Impedance

Validity of segmental bioelectrical impedance analysis for estimating fat-free mass in children including overweight individuals

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 157-165 ◽  
Author(s):  
Megumi Ohta ◽  
Taishi Midorikawa ◽  
Yuki Hikihara ◽  
Yoshihisa Masuo ◽  
Shizuo Sakamoto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis ◽  
Cross Validation ◽  
Model Development ◽  
Bioelectrical Impedance ◽  
Impedance Analysis ◽  
Whole Body ◽  
Body Segments ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Development Group ◽  
Segmental Bioelectrical Impedance

This study examined the validity of segmental bioelectrical impedance (BI) analysis for predicting the fat-free masses (FFMs) of whole-body and body segments in children including overweight individuals. The FFM and impedance (Z) values of arms, trunk, legs, and whole body were determined using a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and segmental BI analyses, respectively, in 149 boys and girls aged 6 to 12 years, who were divided into model-development (n = 74), cross-validation (n = 35), and overweight (n = 40) groups. Simple regression analysis was applied to (length)2/Z (BI index) for each of the whole-body and 3 segments to develop the prediction equations of the measured FFM of the related body part. In the model-development group, the BI index of each of the 3 segments and whole body was significantly correlated to the measured FFM (R2 = 0.867–0.932, standard error of estimation = 0.18–1.44 kg (5.9%–8.7%)). There was no significant difference between the measured and predicted FFM values without systematic error. The application of each equation derived in the model-development group to the cross-validation and overweight groups did not produce significant differences between the measured and predicted FFM values and systematic errors, with an exception that the arm FFM in the overweight group was overestimated. Segmental bioelectrical impedance analysis is useful for predicting the FFM of each of whole-body and body segments in children including overweight individuals, although the application for estimating arm FFM in overweight individuals requires a certain modification.

scholarly journals Applicability of a segmental bioelectrical impedance analysis for predicting the whole body skeletal muscle volume

2007 ◽  
Vol 103 (5) ◽  
pp. 1688-1695 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noriko I. Tanaka ◽  
Masae Miyatani ◽  
Yoshihisa Masuo ◽  
Tetsuo Fukunaga ◽  
Hiroaki Kanehisa
Keyword(s):  
Skeletal Muscle ◽  
Cross Validation ◽  
Bioelectrical Impedance ◽  
Impedance Analysis ◽  
Systematic Errors ◽  
Whole Body ◽  
Imaging Method ◽  
Validation Group ◽  
Body Segment ◽  
Segmental Bioelectrical Impedance

This study aimed to test the hypothesis that a segmental bioelectrical impedance (BI) analysis can predict whole body skeletal muscle (SM) volume more accurately than a whole body BI analysis. Thirty males (19–34 yr) participated in this study. They were divided into validation ( n = 20) and cross-validation groups ( n = 10). The BI values were obtained using two methods: whole body BI analysis, which determines impedance between the wrist and ankle; and segmental BI analysis, which determines the impedance of every body segment in both sides of the upper arm, lower arm, upper leg and lower leg, and five parts of the trunk. Using a magnetic resonance imaging method, whole body SM volume was determined as a reference (SMVMRI). Simple and multiple regression analyses were applied to (length)2/ Z (BI index) for the whole body and for every body segment, respectively, to develop the prediction equations of SMVMRI. In the validation group, there were no significant differences between the measured and estimated SMV and no systematic errors in either BI analysis. In the cross-validation group, the whole body BI analysis produced systematic errors and resulted in the overestimation of SMVMRI, but the segmental BI analysis was cross-validated. In the pooled data, the segmental BI analysis produced a prediction equation, which involves the BI indexes of the trunk and upper thigh as independent variables, with a SE of estimation of 1,693.8 cm3 (6.1%). Thus the findings obtained here indicated that the segmental BI analysis is superior to the whole body BI analysis for estimating SMVMRI.

scholarly journals Development of a Segmental Bioelectrical Impedance Spectroscopy Device for Body Composition Measurement

Sensors ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (22) ◽  
pp. 4825 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Cannon ◽  
JungHun Choi
Keyword(s):  
Body Composition ◽  
Impedance Spectroscopy ◽  
Bioelectrical Impedance ◽  
Impedance Analysis ◽  
Whole Body ◽  
Body Composition Measurement ◽  
Hook Effect ◽  
Reference Device ◽  
Composition Measurement ◽  
Segmental Bioelectrical Impedance

Whole-body bioelectrical impedance analysis for measuring body composition has been well-explored but may not be sensitive enough to changes in the trunk compared to changes in the limbs. Measuring individual body segments can address this issue. A segmental bioelectrical impedance spectroscopy device (SBISD) was designed for body composition measurement and a prototype was implemented. Compensation was performed to adjust the measured values to correct for a phase difference at high frequencies and to counteract the hook effect when measuring the human body. The SBISD was used to measure five subjects and was compared against three existing analyzers. For most segmental measurements, the SBISD was within 10% of the R0 and R∞ values determined with a Bodystat Multiscan 5000 and an Impedimed SFB7. The impedance values from the third reference device, a Seca 514, differed significantly due to its eight-electrode measuring technique, meaning impedance measurements could not be compared directly.

scholarly journals A Comparison of Two Segmental Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis Methods With Whole-Body Analysis

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Cannon ◽  
JungHun Choi
Keyword(s):  
Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis ◽  
Bioelectrical Impedance ◽  
Impedance Analysis ◽  
Whole Body ◽  
Body Measurements ◽  
Body Measurement ◽  
Analysis Methods ◽  
Current Leads ◽  
Segmental Bioelectrical Impedance

Two different methods of attaching the current leads for segmental bioelectrical impedance analysis measurements were compared. The first method was leaving the current electrodes in place at the hand and foot for all measurements, while the second method involved moving the current electrodes to be adjacent to the voltage electrodes when measuring each segment. Each method was compared to a whole-body measurement performed at the same occasion as the segmental measurements. Slight deviation from the whole-body measurement was expected, as the electrode placements resulted in small gaps that were not measured between each of the arm, trunk, and leg segments. The second method, moving the current electrodes for each segment, was found to be the closer of the two methods for whole body measurements, with errors of 2% and 5.8% at R0 and R∞, respectively, while the first method had errors of 4.2% and 6% respectively.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document