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.

A-mode and B-mode ultrasound measurement of fat thickness: a cadaver validation study

Abstract

Background/Objectives

With technological advances, there has been a resurgence in ultrasound as a method to measure subcutaneous fat thickness. Despite the increased interest in this methodology, research comparing A-mode and B-mode ultrasound devices is lacking. Subcutaneous fat thickness measured by a low resolution (2.5 MHz) A-mode ultrasound and a high resolution (12 MHz) B-mode ultrasound were compared to the actual fat thickness in dissected cadavers.

Subjects/Methods

Subcutaneous fat thickness of six cadavers was measured at the abdomen, thigh, triceps, and calf (plus chest for males and suprailiac for females) with both ultrasound devices before the cadavers were dissected and site-specific thickness was measured.

Results

Correlations between both ultrasounds and the dissected measurement exceeded 0.90 at all sites with a few exceptions. At the abdomen, the relationship between the ultrasounds was 0.76, and the B-mode and dissected measurement was also 0.76. The correlation between dissection and A-mode was 0.75 for the suprailiac site, but it was not possible to discern the separation of tissue at this site when using the B-mode device. There were no significant differences (P > 0.05) between the devices and the dissected measurement at any of the six sites. The mean difference in fat thickness between A-mode and B-mode was <0.7 mm at all sites except the calf (1.2 mm)

Conclusion

With the exception of the suprailiac site, both A-mode and B-mode ultrasound are equally capable of providing measurements of subcutaneous fat thickness with an accuracy of <1 mm at most sites.

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

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Wagner DR, Cain DL, Clark NM. Validity and reliability of A-mode ultrasound for body composition assessment of NCAA division I athletes. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0153146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Wagner DR. Ultrasound as a tool to assess body fat. J Obes. 2013;2013:280713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Booth RAD, Goddard BA, Paton A. Measurement of fat thickness in man: a comparison of ultrasound, Harpenden calipers and electrical conductivity. Br J Nutr. 1966;20:719–25.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Loenneke JP, Barnes JT, Wagganer JD, Wilson JM, Lowery RP, Green CE, et al. Validity and reliability of an ultrasound system for estimating adipose tissue. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2014;34:159–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ulbricht L, Neves EB, Ripka WL, Romaneli EFR. Comparison between body fat measurements obtained by portable ultrasound and caliper in young adults. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2012;2012:1952–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Utter AC, Hager ME. Evaluation of ultrasound in assessing body composition of high school wrestlers. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008;40:943–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Johnson KE, Naccarato IA, Corder MA, Repovich W. Validation of three body composition techniques with a comparison of ultrasound abdominal fat depths against an octopolar bioelectrical impedance device. Int J Exerc Sci. 2012;5:205–13.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Schoenfeld BJ, Aragon AA, Moon J, Krieger JW, Tiryaki-Sonmez G. Comparison of amplitude-mode ultrasound versus air displacement plethysmography for assessing body composition changes following participation in a structured weight-loss programme in women. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1111/cpf.12355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Baranauskas MN, Johnson KE, Juvancic-Heltzel JA, Kappler RM, Richardson L, Jamieson S, et al. Seven-site versus three-site method of body composition using BodyMetrix ultrasound compared to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2015;37:317–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Johnson KE, Miller B, Juvancic-Heltzel JA, Agnor SE, Kiger DL, Kappler RM, et al. Agreement between ultrasound and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in assessing percentage body fat in college-aged adults. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2014;34:493–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Loenneke JP, Barnes JT, Wagganer JD, Pujol TJ. Validity of a portable computer-based ultrasound system for estimating adipose tissue in female gymnasts. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2014;34:410–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ripka WL, Ulbricht L, Menghin L, Gewehr PM. Portable A-mode ultrasound for body composition assessment in adolescents. J Ultrasound Med. 2016;35:755–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Smith-Ryan AE, Fultz SN, Melvin MN, Wingfield HL, Woessner MN. Reproducibility and validity of A-mode ultrasound for body composition measurement and classification in overweight and obese men and women. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e91750 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0091750

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Jackson AS, Pollock ML. Generalized equations for predicting body density of men. Br J Nutr. 1978;40:487–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Jackson AS, Pollock ML, Ward A. Generalized equations for predicting body density of women. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1980;12:175–82.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Heyward VH, Wagner DR. Applied Body Composition Assessment. 2nd ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2004. pp. 51-59.

  17. Müller W, Lohman TG, Stewart AD, Maughan RJ, Meyer NL, Sardinha LB, et al. Subcutaneous fat patterning in athletes: selection of appropriate sites and standardization of a novel ultrasound measurement technique: ad hoc working group on body composition, health and performance, under auspices of the IOC Medical Commission. Br J Sports Med. 2016;50:45–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Jones PRM, Davies PSW, Norgan NG. Ultrasonic measurements of subcutaneous adipose tissue thickness in man. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1986;71:359–63.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Weiss LW, Clark FC. Three protocols for measuring subcutaneous fat thickness on the upper extremities. Eur J Appl Physiol. 1987;56:217–21.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Weiss LW, Clark FC. Subcutaneous fat measurements of the leg using three protocols. J Sports Med Phys Fit. 1987;27:437–42.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Müller W, Horn M, Fürhapter-Rieger A, Kainz P, Kröpfl, Maughan RJ, et al. Body composition in sport: a comparison of a novel ultrasound imaging technique to measure subcutaneous fat tissue compared with skinfold measurement. Br J Sports Med. 2013;47:1028–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dale R. Wagner.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wagner, D.R., Thompson, B.J., Anderson, D.A. et al. A-mode and B-mode ultrasound measurement of fat thickness: a cadaver validation study. Eur J Clin Nutr 73, 518–523 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-018-0085-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-018-0085-2

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links