[Comparative analysis of body fat measurement using two bioelectric impedance devices and three household scales (with the function of determining body composition) with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry].

Body composition assessment is often used in clinical practice to assess and monitor nutritional status. For example, body fat mass is a predictor of metabolic diseases, and for an athlete it is a criterion of performance. "Gold standard" - the method of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry - in contrast to bioelectrical impedance analysis, is difficult to apply in everyday clinical practice. Therefore, it becomes relevant to compare the consistency of measured body fat mass using densitometry and bioimpedanceometry. The aim of the study was to perform a comparative analysis of body fat mass estimated by bioimpedanceometry (two bioelectric impedance devices and three household scales with a function of determining body composition) and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Material and methods. Sixteen healthy, physically active adults aged 25 [23; 26] years, male (n=7) and female (n=9), participated in the cross-sectional study. Body composition was assessed under standard conditions in the morning, after a 12-hour fast, using densitometry (Stratos Dr X-ray densitometer) and bioimpedanceometry [bioelectric impedance devices: Medass ABC-01, Diamant AIST (with manufacturer's predictive equations); household scales with a function of determining body composition: Tanita BC-718, Picooc Mini, Scarlett SC-216]. Statistical analysis was performed using Statistica 10 package (StatSoft, USA), and included Friedman's chi-criterion, Lin's correlation concordance coefficient, Bland-Altman method, Spearman's correlation coefficient, and Wilcoxon's criterion with Bonferroni correction for multiple studies. Results. None of the bioimpedanceometry devices studied showed a relationship (Bland- Altman coefficient >0.2) or consistency (Lin's correlation concordance coefficient <0.9) when compared to densitometry, although Spearman correlation was moderate for Tanita BC-718 (r=0.603, p<0.05), Diamant AIST (r=0.641, p<0.01) and Scarlett SC-216 (r=0.609, p<0.05), and notable for Medass ABC-01 (r=0.841, p<0.01) and Picooc Mini (r=0.718, p<0.01). Conclusion. This study found that no bioelectrical impedance device has consistency with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in assessing body fat mass. Since the accuracy of body fat mass measurement is critical in body composition diagnosis, the assessment results obtained by bioimpedanceometry should be interpreted with caution.