scholarly journals Correction to: Estimating thigh skeletal muscle volume using multi-frequency segmental-bioelectrical impedance analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Masashi Taniguchi ◽  
Yosuke Yamada ◽  
Masahide Yagi ◽  
Ryusuke Nakai ◽  
Hiroshige Tateuchi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Skeletal Muscle ◽  
Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis ◽  
Bioelectrical Impedance ◽  
Impedance Analysis ◽  
Muscle Volume ◽  
Segmental Bioelectrical Impedance

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

Applicability of segmental bioelectrical impedance analysis for predicting trunk skeletal muscle volume

2006 ◽  
Vol 100 (2) ◽  
pp. 572-578 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noriko Ishiguro ◽  
Hiroaki Kanehisa ◽  
Masae Miyatani ◽  
Yoshihisa Masuo ◽  
Tetsuo Fukunaga
Keyword(s):  
Skeletal Muscle ◽  
Cross Validation ◽  
Dorsal Surface ◽  
Bioelectrical Impedance ◽  
Impedance Analysis ◽  
The Body ◽  
Muscle Volume ◽  
Greater Trochanter ◽  
The Third ◽  
Segmental Bioelectrical Impedance

This study aimed to investigate the validity of using segmental bioelectrical impedance (BI) analysis for estimating skeletal muscle volume (MV) in the trunk, defined as the body segment from the acromion process to the greater trochanter. Using a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) method, the trunk MV was determined in 28 men (19∼34 yr), divided into validation ( n = 20) and cross-validation ( n = 8) groups, and used as a reference (MVMRI). For BI measurements of the trunk, the source electrodes were placed at the dorsal surface of the third metacarpal bone of both hands and the dorsal surface of the third metatarsal bone of both feet, and the detector electrodes were placed at the acromion process of both shoulders and the greater trochanter of both femurs. Using this arrangement, the BI values of five parts of the trunk, both sides of the upper region, the middle region, and both sides of the lower region, were obtained and then used to calculate the whole trunk BI value and BI index (BI indexTR). In the validation group, a simple regression analysis of the relationship between BI indexTR and MVMRI showed a significant correlation between the two variables ( r = 0.884, P < 0.05) and produced a prediction equation with a SE of estimation of 1,020.3 cm3 (8.5%). In the validation and cross-validation groups, there were no significant differences between the measured and estimated MV without systematic errors. These findings indicate that the segmental BI analysis employed in the present study can be used to estimate trunk MV.

Evaluation of skeletal muscle in patients with Fukuyama congenital muscular dystrophy (FCMD) using bioelectrical impedance analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 27 ◽  
pp. S226
Author(s):  
T. Murakami ◽  
K. Ishigai ◽  
K. Ishiguro ◽  
T. Sato ◽  
M. Shichiji ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Skeletal Muscle ◽  
Muscular Dystrophy ◽  
Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis ◽  
Congenital Muscular Dystrophy ◽  
Bioelectrical Impedance ◽  
Impedance Analysis

Detection of Hydration Status by Total Body Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis (BIA) in Patients on Hemodialysis

1997 ◽  
Vol 20 (7) ◽  
pp. 371-374 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Oe ◽  
W.M. De Fijter ◽  
C.W.H. De Fijter ◽  
B. Straver ◽  
P.L. Oe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis ◽  
Bioelectrical Impedance ◽  
Dry Weight ◽  
Impedance Analysis ◽  
Hydration Status ◽  
Fluid Loss ◽  
Nutritional Analysis ◽  
Total Body ◽  
Segmental Bioelectrical Impedance ◽  
Simultaneous Assessment

The purpose of the present study was to investigate whether total body bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) could be appropriate to assess normohydration (i.e. dry weight) in hemodialysis patients. This study is warranted, because the simultaneous assessment of both hydration and nutritional status by BIA requires the presence of a situation of normohydration in order to guarantee valid conclusions about the nutritional analysis. Segmental bioelectrical impedance was performed to classify patients according to their hydration status. BIA measurements revealed significant differences in TBW, ECW and ICW/ECW between three hydration subgroups (under-, normo-, and overhydration), whereas ICW was similar. Therefore, TBW, ECW and ICW/ECW appear appropriate variables to assess hydration status in patients on hemodialysis. Hemodialysis diminished ECW significantly, whereas ICW did not change, suggesting that a decrease of ECW explains the fluid loss during hemodialysis.

Modeling upper and lower limb muscle volume by bioelectrical impedance analysis

2007 ◽  
Vol 103 (4) ◽  
pp. 1428-1435 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Stahn ◽  
Elmarie Terblanche ◽  
Günther Strobel
Keyword(s):  
Lower Limb ◽  
Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis ◽  
Total Error ◽  
Bioelectrical Impedance ◽  
Impedance Analysis ◽  
Muscle Volume ◽  
Lower Limb Muscle ◽  
Limb Muscle ◽  
Low Frequencies ◽  
Appendicular Skeletal Muscle

Most studies employing bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) for estimating appendicular skeletal muscle mass using descriptive BIA models rely on statistical rather than biophysical principles. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the feasibility of estimating arm and leg muscle volume (MV) based on multiple bioimpedance measurements and using a recently proposed mathematical model and to compare this technique to conventional segmental BIA at high and low frequencies. MV of the arm and leg, respectively, was determined in 15 young, healthy, active men [age 22 ± 2 (SD) yr, total body fat 15.6 ± 5.1%] by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and BIA using a conventional and new bioimpedance model. MRI-determined MV for leg and arm was 6,268 ± 1,099 and 1,173 ± 172 cm3, respectively. Estimated MV by the new BIA model [leg: 6,294 ± 1,155 cm3 (50 kHz), 6,278 ± 1,103 cm3 (500 kHz); arm: 1,216 ± 172 cm3 (50 kHz), 1,155 ± 157 cm3 (500 kHz)] was not statistically different from MRI-determined MV (leg: P= 0.958; arm: P= 0.188). The new BIA model was superior to conventional BIA and performed best at 500 kHz for estimating leg MV as indicated by the lower relative total error [new: 3.6% (500 kHz), 5.2% (50 kHz); conventional: 7.6% (500 kHz) and 8.3% (50 kHz)]. In contrast, the new BIA model, both at 50 and 500 kHz, did not improve the accuracy for estimating arm MV [new: 10.8% (500 kHz), 10.6% (50 kHz); conventional: 11.8% (500 kHz), 11.4% (50 kHz)]. It was concluded that modeling of multiple BIA measurements has advantages for the determination of lower limb muscle volume in healthy, active adult men.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document