Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2002 Jun;42(2):186-9.

Bioelectrical impedance measures in different position and vs dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA)

Affiliations
  • PMID: 12032414
Comparative Study

Bioelectrical impedance measures in different position and vs dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA)

A Andreoli et al. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2002 Jun.

Abstract

Background: Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) is a safe, low-cost, non-invasive, rapid method for the assessment of body composition. It has therefore a great potential to be employed for epidemiological and clinical studies. However, many devices are available to estimate total body water (TBW), fat-free mass (FFM) and fat mass (FM) by bioelectrical impedance measurements. Moreover, bipedal devices allowing measurements in the only standing position are recently developed. They are easy and practical to use without operator, so a large diffusion can be forecasted in fields as sport and diet programs. Comparison of body composition estimation by a bipedal device with bioimpedance devices currently used, using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) as reference method.

Methods: The study was performed on 18 healthy women volunteers, age 32.0+/-10.7 years divided in two groups at different levels of body fatness. A Xitron 4000 impedance analyser, a BIA-101 RJL System, and the bipedal device Tanita were used for comparison. The measurements were performed in standing and supine position for Xitron and RJL devices. DXA measurements were performed with a total body scanner DPX, Lunar.

Results: FM and FFM were not statistically different when measured with Xitron and RJL in comparison with DXA, while these variables were significantly different between Tanita and DXA measurements. No significant difference were found between measurements in the supine and standing position with the Xitron and RJL system.

Conclusions: Our results suggest that FM and FFM evaluated by bipedal device Tanita are significantly different from FM and FFM measured by DXA in both normal and obese population.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources