Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorErselcan, T
dc.contributor.authorCandan, F
dc.contributor.authorSaruhan, S
dc.contributor.authorAyca, T
dc.date.accessioned2019-07-27T12:10:23Z
dc.date.accessioned2019-07-28T10:25:15Z
dc.date.available2019-07-27T12:10:23Z
dc.date.available2019-07-28T10:25:15Z
dc.date.issued2000
dc.identifier.issn0250-6807
dc.identifier.urihttps://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000046691
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12418/11674
dc.descriptionWOS: 000166272200011en_US
dc.descriptionPubMed ID: 11146331en_US
dc.description.abstractBackground: Skinfold thickness (SFT) and bioelectrical impedance (BIA) are readily available and commonly used techniques in patient monitoring for body composition analysis (BCA) in clinical practise. Another one, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) method became popular in body composition analysis (BCA) in recent years. its results have been reported to be quite accurate and precise, in comparison with in vivo or in vitro multiple component reference methods. The aim of the present study was to assess the degree of agreement between SFT and DEXA, and BIA and DEXA methods, in obese and nonobese patients. Methods: Body fat mass (FM) was measured in 16 nonobese (mean body mass index; BMI = 22.2 +/- 2.2 kg/m(2)) and in 21 obese (BMI = 34.5 +/- 6.1 kg/m(2)) women with DEXA, SFT, and BIA in the same morning. Results: Mean (+/- SD) FM (kg) was 16.3 +/- 5.5, 15.0 +/- 5.1, 14.7 +/- 4.9 in nonobese subjects and 38.8 +/- 10.1, 36.3 +/- 10.0, 37.1 +/- 12.0 in obese patients, by DEXA, SFT and BIA, respectively. Comparison of the DEXA-BIA and DEXA-STF methods showed high correlation in regression line analysis in nonobese subjects as, r(2) = 0.93 and 0.89, respectively. Regression coefficients were 0.84 and 0.75 in obese patients. However, reanalysis of the data by the Bland and Altman method revealed an obvious lack of agreement between the DEXA-BIA and DEXA-SFT methods in obese patients. In addition, FM was underestimated by BIA and SFT as compared to DEXA in both of the study groups. Besides, better precision was obtained by DEXA method among the others. Conclusion: The SFT or BIA method would be preferred to monitor BCA in non-obese subjects in clinical routine. However, DEXA should be considered as the method of choice in obese patient monitoring, since reproducibility gains special importance, other than the accuracy in the context. Copyright (C) 2000 S. Karger AG, Basel.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherKARGERen_US
dc.relation.isversionof10.1159/000046691en_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectbody composition analysisen_US
dc.subjectdual energy X-ray absorptiometryen_US
dc.subjectbioelectrical impedanceen_US
dc.subjectskinfold thicknessen_US
dc.subjectobesityen_US
dc.titleComparison of body composition analysis methods in clinical routineen_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.relation.journalANNALS OF NUTRITION AND METABOLISMen_US
dc.contributor.departmentCumhuriyet Univ, Sch Med, Dept Nucl Med, TR-PK806 Sivas, Turkey -- Cumhuriyet, Sch Med, Dept Internal Med, Sivas, Turkey -- Cumhuriyet, Sch Med, Dept Dietet, Sivas, Turkeyen_US
dc.identifier.volume44en_US
dc.identifier.issue05.Junen_US
dc.identifier.endpage248en_US
dc.identifier.startpage243en_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record