Cook with Different Pots, but Similar Taste? Comparison of Phase Angle Using Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis According to Device Type and Examination Posture

Author:

Yang Jihyun1,Kim Jeehyun234ORCID,Chun Byung-chul234ORCID,Lee Jae-myeong5

Affiliation:

1. Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, 29 Saemunan-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul 03181, Republic of Korea

2. Department of Preventive Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, Goryeodae-ro 73, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul 02841, Republic of Korea

3. Graduate School of Public Health, Korea University College of Medicine, Goryeodae-ro 73, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul 02841, Republic of Korea

4. Transdisciplinary Major in Learning Health Systems, Department of Healthcare Sciences, Graduate School, Korea University College of Medicine, Goryeodae-ro 73, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul 02841, Republic of Korea

5. Division of Acute Care Surgery, Department of Surgery, Korea University Anam Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Goryeodae-ro 73, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul 02841, Republic of Korea

Abstract

Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) is gaining popularity as a tool for body composition assessment. Although BIA has been studied and validated in different populations, age groups, and clinical settings, including critically ill patients, there are concerns about BIA reproducibility and reliability for different device types and postures. This study aimed to evaluate the reliability of BIA using different devices, postures, and lead types. Cross-sectional observational data were collected from 74 healthy volunteers (32 women, 42 men). We used two types of devices, three types of postures (standing, sitting, and lying), and two lead types (clamp lead and adhesive lead) to measure the whole-body phase angle (phA) at a single frequency of 50 kHz. The measurements were validated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland–Altman plot analysis. All phA measurements recorded using the two types of devices, three different postures, and two types of leads were equivalent (mean ICC = 0.9932, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.9905–0.0053, p < 0.001). The average mean difference in phA was 0.31 (95% CI 0.16–0.46). The largest phA value was measured using BWA with an adhesive-type lead in the supine position. There were no differences between the standing and sitting positions. We compared the consistency and reliability of phA using two devices, two lead types, and three postures. Seven different phA were interchangeable in healthy volunteers.

Publisher

MDPI AG

Subject

Paleontology,Space and Planetary Science,General Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology,Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3