Andrew R Jagim, Joel Luedke, Jacob L Erickson, Jennifer B Fields, Margaret T Jones
{"title":"验证用于测定消防员体脂百分比的生物电阻抗设备。","authors":"Andrew R Jagim, Joel Luedke, Jacob L Erickson, Jennifer B Fields, Margaret T Jones","doi":"10.1519/JSC.0000000000004809","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>Jagim, AR, Luedke, J, Erickson, JL, Fields, JB, and Jones, MT. Validation of bioelectrical impedance devices for the determination of body fat percentage in firefighters. J Strength Cond Res 38(8): e448-e453, 2024-To cross-validate bioelectrical impedance devices for the determination of body fat percentage (BF%) in firefighters. Twenty-eight structural firefighters were evaluated (female, n = 2; male, n = 26 [mean ± SD] age: 38.2 ± 8.3 years; height: 180.2 ± 7.5 cm; body mass: 86.7 ± 20.8 kg; body mass index: 25.8 ± 7.8 kg·m-2) using multifrequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (MFBIA) hand-to-foot device, and single-frequency BIA foot scale (F2FBIA), and a single-frequency handheld BIA device (HHBIA). Dual X-ray absorptiometry served as the criterion. Validity metrics were examined to establish each method's performance. Body fat % values produced by MFBIA (r = 0.913), F2FBIA (r = 0.695), and HHBIA (r = 0.876) were strongly associated (p < 0.001) with criterion BF% measures. However, MFBIA, F2FBIA, and HHBIA all significantly (p < 0.001) underestimated BF% when compared with the criterion measure. Constant error ranged between 4.0 and 5.5% across all BIA devices. Despite strong associations between the BIA devices included in the current study and the criterion measure, all BIA devices underestimated BF%, which resulted in an overestimation of fat-free mass. In addition, proportional bias was observed in which BF% was overestimated at lower values and underestimated at higher values.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":"38 8","pages":"e448-e453"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validation of Bioelectrical Impedance Devices for the Determination of Body Fat Percentage in Firefighters.\",\"authors\":\"Andrew R Jagim, Joel Luedke, Jacob L Erickson, Jennifer B Fields, Margaret T Jones\",\"doi\":\"10.1519/JSC.0000000000004809\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>Jagim, AR, Luedke, J, Erickson, JL, Fields, JB, and Jones, MT. Validation of bioelectrical impedance devices for the determination of body fat percentage in firefighters. J Strength Cond Res 38(8): e448-e453, 2024-To cross-validate bioelectrical impedance devices for the determination of body fat percentage (BF%) in firefighters. Twenty-eight structural firefighters were evaluated (female, n = 2; male, n = 26 [mean ± SD] age: 38.2 ± 8.3 years; height: 180.2 ± 7.5 cm; body mass: 86.7 ± 20.8 kg; body mass index: 25.8 ± 7.8 kg·m-2) using multifrequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (MFBIA) hand-to-foot device, and single-frequency BIA foot scale (F2FBIA), and a single-frequency handheld BIA device (HHBIA). Dual X-ray absorptiometry served as the criterion. Validity metrics were examined to establish each method's performance. Body fat % values produced by MFBIA (r = 0.913), F2FBIA (r = 0.695), and HHBIA (r = 0.876) were strongly associated (p < 0.001) with criterion BF% measures. However, MFBIA, F2FBIA, and HHBIA all significantly (p < 0.001) underestimated BF% when compared with the criterion measure. Constant error ranged between 4.0 and 5.5% across all BIA devices. Despite strong associations between the BIA devices included in the current study and the criterion measure, all BIA devices underestimated BF%, which resulted in an overestimation of fat-free mass. In addition, proportional bias was observed in which BF% was overestimated at lower values and underestimated at higher values.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":\"38 8\",\"pages\":\"e448-e453\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000004809\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000004809","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Validation of Bioelectrical Impedance Devices for the Determination of Body Fat Percentage in Firefighters.
Abstract: Jagim, AR, Luedke, J, Erickson, JL, Fields, JB, and Jones, MT. Validation of bioelectrical impedance devices for the determination of body fat percentage in firefighters. J Strength Cond Res 38(8): e448-e453, 2024-To cross-validate bioelectrical impedance devices for the determination of body fat percentage (BF%) in firefighters. Twenty-eight structural firefighters were evaluated (female, n = 2; male, n = 26 [mean ± SD] age: 38.2 ± 8.3 years; height: 180.2 ± 7.5 cm; body mass: 86.7 ± 20.8 kg; body mass index: 25.8 ± 7.8 kg·m-2) using multifrequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (MFBIA) hand-to-foot device, and single-frequency BIA foot scale (F2FBIA), and a single-frequency handheld BIA device (HHBIA). Dual X-ray absorptiometry served as the criterion. Validity metrics were examined to establish each method's performance. Body fat % values produced by MFBIA (r = 0.913), F2FBIA (r = 0.695), and HHBIA (r = 0.876) were strongly associated (p < 0.001) with criterion BF% measures. However, MFBIA, F2FBIA, and HHBIA all significantly (p < 0.001) underestimated BF% when compared with the criterion measure. Constant error ranged between 4.0 and 5.5% across all BIA devices. Despite strong associations between the BIA devices included in the current study and the criterion measure, all BIA devices underestimated BF%, which resulted in an overestimation of fat-free mass. In addition, proportional bias was observed in which BF% was overestimated at lower values and underestimated at higher values.