| Title |
Body composition in overweight and obese women postpartum: bioimpedance methods validated by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry and doubly labeled water
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1038/ejcn.2016.50 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
L Ellegård, F Bertz, A Winkvist, I Bosaeus, H K Brekke |
| Abstract |
Obesity, pregnancy and lactation all affect body composition. Simple methods to estimate body composition are useful in clinical practice and to evaluate interventions. In overweight and obese lactating women, such methods are not fully validated. The objective of this study was to validate the accuracy and precision of bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS) by Xitron 4200 and 8-electrode multifrequency impedance (multifrequency bioimpedance analysis, MFBIA) by Tanita MC180MA with the reference methods dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and doubly labeled water (DLW) for the assessment of body composition in 70 overweight and obese women postpartum. The LEVA-study (Lifestyle for Effective Weight loss during lactation) consisted of an intervention and follow-up with three assessments at 3, 6 and 15 months postpartum, which made possible the validation of both accuracy and precision. Mean differences between methods were tested by a paired t-test and Bland-Altman plots for systematic bias. At baseline, BIS and MFBIA underestimated fat mass (FM) by 2.6±2.8 and 8.0±4.2 kg compared with DXA (P<0.001) but without systematic bias. BIS and MFBIA overestimated total body water (TBW) by 2.4±2.2 and 4.4±3.2 kg (P<0.001) compared with DLW, with slight systematic bias by BIS. BIS correctly estimated muscle mass without systematic bias (P>0.05). BIS overestimated changes in TBW (P=0.01) without systematic bias, whereas MFBIA varied greatly and with systematic bias. BIS underestimates mean FM compared with DXA but can detect mean changes in body composition, although with large limits of agreement. BIS both accurately and precisely estimates muscle mass in overweight and obese women postpartum. MFBIA underestimates FM and overestimates TBW by proprietary equations compared with DXA and DLW.European Journal of Clinical Nutrition advance online publication, 30 March 2016; doi:10.1038/ejcn.2016.50. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 80 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 21% |
| Researcher | 10 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Unknown | 24 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 17 | 21% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 20% |
| Sports and Recreations | 7 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 6% |
| Psychology | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Unknown | 25 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 January 2019.
All research outputs
#6,982,828
of 22,893,031 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Clinical Nutrition
#2,053
of 3,865 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,158
of 300,657 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Clinical Nutrition
#49
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,893,031 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,865 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.3. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 300,657 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.