Katherine Sullivan, Casey J. Metoyer, Lee J. Winchester, Michael R. Esco, Michael V. Fedewa
{"title":"Agreement between ultrasound protocols for the estimation of body fat percentage: Comparison to a four-compartment model","authors":"Katherine Sullivan, Casey J. Metoyer, Lee J. Winchester, Michael R. Esco, Michael V. Fedewa","doi":"10.1111/cpf.12835","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The purpose of this study was to examine the agreement between body fat percentage (%Fat) estimates derived from a standardized ultrasound protocol (%Fat<sub>IASMS</sub>), a commonly used skinfold (SKF)-site-based ultrasound protocol (%Fat<sub>JP</sub>), and a criterion four-compartment (4C) model (%Fat<sub>4C</sub>). For the ultrasound protocols, all measurement sites were marked, measured and analyzed by the same evaluator. Subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) thickness was measured manually at the region where the muscle fascia was parallel to the skin and the average value per measurement site was used to calculate body density and subsequently %Fat. A repeated-measures analysis of variance with a priori planned contrasts was used to compare %Fat values between the 4C criterion and both ultrasound methods. Small nonsignificant mean differences were observed between %Fat<sub>IASMS</sub> (18.82 ± 14.21%Fat, effect size [ES] = 0.25, <i>p</i> = 0.178), %Fat<sub>JP</sub> (18.23 ± 13.32%Fat, ES = 0.32, <i>p</i> = 0.050) and the %Fat<sub>4C</sub> criterion (21.70 ± 7.57%Fat); however, %Fat<sub>IASMS</sub> did not yield a smaller mean difference than the %Fat<sub>JP</sub> (<i>p</i> = 0.287). Additionally, %Fat<sub>IASMS</sub> (<i>r</i> = 0.90, <i>p</i> < 0.001, standard error of the estimate [SEE] = 3.29%) and %Fat<sub>JP</sub> (<i>r</i> = 0.88, <i>p</i> < 0.001, SEE = 3.60%) were strongly correlated with the 4C criterion, however, %Fat<sub>IASMS</sub> did not yield better agreement than %Fat<sub>JP</sub> (<i>p</i> = 0.257). Despite slightly underestimating %Fat, both ultrasound techniques demonstrated <i>Good—Very Good</i> agreement with the 4C criterion, with comparable mean differences, correlations, and SEE. The International Association of Sciences in Medicine and Sports (IASMS) standardized protocol using manual calculations of SAT was comparable to the SKF-site-based ultrasound protocol when compared to the 4C criterion. These results indicate that the IASMS (with manually measured SAT) and SKF-site-based ultrasound protocols may be of practical use to clinicians.</p>","PeriodicalId":10504,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cpf.12835","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the agreement between body fat percentage (%Fat) estimates derived from a standardized ultrasound protocol (%FatIASMS), a commonly used skinfold (SKF)-site-based ultrasound protocol (%FatJP), and a criterion four-compartment (4C) model (%Fat4C). For the ultrasound protocols, all measurement sites were marked, measured and analyzed by the same evaluator. Subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) thickness was measured manually at the region where the muscle fascia was parallel to the skin and the average value per measurement site was used to calculate body density and subsequently %Fat. A repeated-measures analysis of variance with a priori planned contrasts was used to compare %Fat values between the 4C criterion and both ultrasound methods. Small nonsignificant mean differences were observed between %FatIASMS (18.82 ± 14.21%Fat, effect size [ES] = 0.25, p = 0.178), %FatJP (18.23 ± 13.32%Fat, ES = 0.32, p = 0.050) and the %Fat4C criterion (21.70 ± 7.57%Fat); however, %FatIASMS did not yield a smaller mean difference than the %FatJP (p = 0.287). Additionally, %FatIASMS (r = 0.90, p < 0.001, standard error of the estimate [SEE] = 3.29%) and %FatJP (r = 0.88, p < 0.001, SEE = 3.60%) were strongly correlated with the 4C criterion, however, %FatIASMS did not yield better agreement than %FatJP (p = 0.257). Despite slightly underestimating %Fat, both ultrasound techniques demonstrated Good—Very Good agreement with the 4C criterion, with comparable mean differences, correlations, and SEE. The International Association of Sciences in Medicine and Sports (IASMS) standardized protocol using manual calculations of SAT was comparable to the SKF-site-based ultrasound protocol when compared to the 4C criterion. These results indicate that the IASMS (with manually measured SAT) and SKF-site-based ultrasound protocols may be of practical use to clinicians.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging publishes reports on clinical and experimental research pertinent to human physiology in health and disease. The scope of the Journal is very broad, covering all aspects of the regulatory system in the cardiovascular, renal and pulmonary systems with special emphasis on methodological aspects. The focus for the journal is, however, work that has potential clinical relevance. The Journal also features review articles on recent front-line research within these fields of interest.
Covered by the major abstracting services including Current Contents and Science Citation Index, Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging plays an important role in providing effective and productive communication among clinical physiologists world-wide.