Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Bioelectrical impedance validation studies: alternative approaches to their interpretation

European Journal of Clinical Nutrition volume 67, pages S10–S13 (2013)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Background/Objectives:

Cross-validation of methods of body composition assessment necessitates statistical evaluation of the degree to which the two methods are in agreement. Typically, impedance-based methods for predicting body composition are assessed against other methods using limits of agreement and correlation analysis. Alternative approaches are presented with reference to example body composition data obtained using bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS) and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA).

Subjects/Methods:

A randomly selected data set, drawn from a body composition database, was analysed by limits of agreement analysis and error grid analysis.

Results:

The precision of BIS-derived predictions of percentage body fat relative to that of DXA can be determined from limits of agreement analysis. The importance of knowing the precision of the reference method in such analyses was highlighted. Error grid analysis has the potential to aid interpretation of method comparison data in an intuitively understandable way.

Conclusions:

Alternative ways of comparing analytical methods that are in use in other branches of biomedical research may prove useful when evaluating the utility of impedance-based methods and other methods for the assessment of body composition in cross-validation studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Roche AF, Heymsfield SB, Lohman TG (eds) Human Body Composition 1st edn. Human Kinetics: Champaign, IL, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Duren DL, Sherwood RJ, Czerwinski SA, Lee M, Choh AC, Siervogel RM, Cameron Chumlea W . Body composition methods: comparisons and interpretation. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2008; 2: 1139–1146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Lee SY, Gallagher D . Assessment methods in human body composition. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 2008; 11: 566–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Jebb SA, Elia M . Techniques for the measurement of body composition: a practical guide. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disor 1993; 17: 611–621.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bland JM, Altman DG . Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1: 307–310.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Fors H, Gelander L, Bjarnason R, Albertsson-Wikland K, Bosaeus I . Body composition, as assessed by bioelectrical impedance spectroscopy and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, in a healthy paediatric population. Acta Paediatr 2002; 91: 755–760.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Dehghan M, Merchant AT . Is bioelectrical impedance accurate for use in large epidemiological studies? Nutr J 2008; 7: 26–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Isenring E, Bauer J, Capra S, Davies PS . Evaluation of foot-to-foot bioelectrical impedance analysis for the prediction of total body water in oncology outpatients receiving radiotherapy. Eur J Clin Nutr 2004; 58: 46–51.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Critchley LA, Critchley JA . A meta-analysis of studies using bias and precision statistics to compare cardiac output measurement techniques. J Clin Monit Comput 1999; 15: 85–91.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Cecconi M, Rhodes A, Poloniecki J, Della Rocca G, Grounds RM . Bench-to-bedside review: the importance of the precision of the reference technique in method comparison studies--with specific reference to the measurement of cardiac output. Crit Care 2009; 13: 201–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cornish BH, Thomas BJ, Ward LC . Improved prediction of extracellular and total body water using impedance loci generated by multiple frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis. Phys Med Biol 1993; 38: 337–346.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. De Lorenzo A, Andreoli A, Matthie J, Withers P . Predicting body cell mass with bioimpedance by using theoretical methods: a technological review. J Appl Physiol 1997; 82: 1542–1558.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. White GH, Farrance I . AACB Uncertainty of measurement working group. Uncertainty of measurement in quantitative medical testing. A laboratory implementation guide. Clin Biochem Rev 2004; 25: S1–S24.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Stover JF, Stocker R, Lenherr R, Neff TA, Cottini SR, Zoller B et al. Noninvasive cardiac output and blood pressure monitoring cannot replace an invasive monitoring system in critically ill patients. BMC Anesthesiol 2009; 9: 6–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. van der Kleij SC, Koolen BB, Newhall DA, Gerritse BM, Rosseel PM, Rijpstra TA et al. Clinical evaluation of a new tracheal impedance cardiography method. Anaesthesia 2012; 67: 729–733.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Santos DA, Silva AM, Matias CN, Fields DA, Heymsfield SB, Sardinha LB . Accuracy of DXA in estimating body composition changes in elite athletes using a four compartment model as the reference method. Nutr Metab (Lond) 2010; 7: 22–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Scafoglieri A, Provyn S, Wallace J, Louis O, Tresignie J, Bautmans I, De Mey J, Clarys JP . Whole Body Composition by Hologic QDR 4500/A DXA: System Reliability versus User Accuracy and Precision. In: Ivanov (ed.). Applications and Experiences of Quality Control. Intechopen Publishing: NY, USA, 2012, pp 46–62.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Lohman TG . Dual energy X-ray Absorptiometry. In: Roche AF, Heymsfield SB, Lohman TG (eds). Human Body Composition, Human Kinetics: Champaign, IL, 1996 pp 63–78.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Parker L, Reilly JJ, Slater C, Wells JC, Pitsiladis Y . Validity of six field and laboratory methods for measurement of body composition in boys. Obes Res 2003; 11: 852–858.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Krouwer JS . Setting performance goals and evaluating total analytical error for diagnostic assays. Clin Chem 2002; 48: 919–927.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Krouwer JS, Cembrowski GS . A review of standards and statistics used to describe blood glucose monitor performance. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2010; 4: 75–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Clarke WL, Cox D, Gonder-Frederick LA, Carter W, Pohl SL . Evaluating clinical accuracy of systems for self-monitoring of blood glucose. Diabetes Care 1987; 10: 622–628.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Krouwer JS, Kallner A, Killeen A, Kondratovich M, Lindberg S, Nandagopalan S et al. How to Construct and Interpret an Error Grid for Diagnostic Assays; Proposed Guideline. Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute, Publication EP27-P: Wayne. PA, 2009, pp 58.

    Google Scholar 

  24. World Health Organisation. Physical status: the use and interpretation of anthropometry. Report of a WHO Expert Committee. WHO Technical Report Series 854. World Health Organization: Geneva, 1995.

  25. Meeuwsen S, Horgan GW, Elia M . The relationship between BMI and percent body fat, measured by bioelectrical impedance, in a large adult sample is curvilinear and influenced by age and sex. Clin Nutr 2010; 29: 560–566.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Green DJ . Is body mass index really the best measure of obesity in individuals? J Am Coll Cardiol 2009; 53: 526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Shah NR, Braverman ER . Measuring adiposity in patients: the utility of body mass index (BMI), percent body fat, and leptin. PLoS One 2012; 7: e33308.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr Tim Essex for reading and providing valuable advice and critical comment on the manuscript. Publication of this article was supported by a grant from seca Gmbh & Co. KG, Hamburg, Germany.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Chemistry and Molecular Biosciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    L C Ward

Authors
  1. L C Ward
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L C Ward.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest. Ward has consulted to ImpediMed Ltd. ImpediMed Ltd had no involvement in the conception and execution of this study or in the preparation of the manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ward, L. Bioelectrical impedance validation studies: alternative approaches to their interpretation. Eur J Clin Nutr 67 (Suppl 1), S10–S13 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/ejcn.2012.159

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ejcn.2012.159

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links