Logo image
Body composition in older community-dwelling adults with hip fracture: portable field methods validated by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry
Journal article   Open access   Peer reviewed

Body composition in older community-dwelling adults with hip fracture: portable field methods validated by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry

Anthony Villani, Michelle Miller, Ian D Cameron, Susan Kurrle, Craig Whitehead and Maria Crotty
British Journal of Nutrition, Vol.109(7), pp.1219-1229
2013
pdf
PDF - Published Version (Corrigendum)53.01 kBDownloadView
CorrectionPDF - Published Version - Corrigendum Open Access
pdf
PDF - Published Version259.14 kBDownloadView
Published VersionPDF - Published Version Open Access
url
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114512003170View
Published Version
url
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114513002006View
Correction

Abstract

Animal Production Nutrition and Dietetics Food Sciences
Ageing is associated with weight loss and subsequently poor health outcomes. The present study assessed agreement between two field methods, bioelectrical impedance spectroscopy (BIS) and corrected arm muscle area (CAMA) for assessment of body composition against dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), the reference technique. Agreement between two predictive equations estimating skeletal muscle mass (SMM) from BIS against SMM from DXA was also determined. Assessments occurred at baseline < 14 d post-surgery (n 79), and at 6 months (6M; n 75) and 12 months (12M; n 63) in community-living older adults after surgical treatment for hip fracture. The 95 % limits of agreement (LOA) between BIS and DXA, CAMA and DXA and the equations and DXA were assessed using Bland-Altman analyses. Mean bias and LOA for fat-free mass (FFM) between BIS and DXA were: baseline, 0.7 ( - 10.9, 12.4) kg; 6M, - 0.5 ( - 20.7, 19.8) kg; 12M, 0.1 ( - 8.7, 8.9) kg and for SMM between CAMA and DXA were: baseline, 0.3 ( - 11.7, 12.3) kg; 6M, 1.3 ( - 4.5, 7.1) kg; 12M, 0.9 ( - 5.4, 7.2) kg. Equivalent data for predictive equations against DXA were: equation 1: baseline, 15.1 ( - 9.5, 20.6) kg; 6M, 17.1 ( - 12.0, 22.2) kg; 12M, 17.5 ( - 13.0, 22.0) kg; equation 2: baseline, 12.6 ( - 7.3, 19.9) kg; 6M, 14.4 ( - 9.7, 19.1) kg; 12M, 14.8 ( - 10.7, 18.9) kg. Proportional bias (BIS: β = - 0.337, P< 0.001; CAMA: β = - 0.294, P< 0.001) was present at baseline but not at 6M or 12M. Clinicians should be cautious in using these field methods to predict FFM and SMM, particularly in the acute care setting. New predictive equations would be beneficial.

Details

Metrics

43 File views/ downloads
298 Record Views

InCites Highlights

These are selected metrics from InCites Benchmarking & Analytics tool, related to this output

Collaboration types
Domestic collaboration
Web Of Science research areas
Nutrition & Dietetics

UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

This output has contributed to the advancement of the following goals:

#2 Zero Hunger
#3 Good Health and Well-Being
#5 Gender Equality

Source: InCites

Logo image