Agreement between ultrasound protocols for the estimation of body fat percentage: Comparison to a four-compartment model

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q4 PHYSIOLOGY
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,&nbsp;Casey J. Metoyer,&nbsp;Lee J. Winchester,&nbsp;Michael R. Esco,&nbsp;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> &lt; 0.001, standard error of the estimate [SEE] = 3.29%) and %Fat<sub>JP</sub> (<i>r</i> = 0.88, <i>p</i> &lt; 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.

估计体脂率的超声方案之间的一致性:与四室模型的比较
本研究的目的是检查标准化超声方案(%FatIASMS)、常用的基于皮褶(SKF)位点的超声方案(%FatJP)和标准四室(4C)模型(%Fat4C)得出的体脂百分比(%fat)估计值之间的一致性。对于超声方案,所有测量部位都由同一评估人员进行标记、测量和分析。在肌肉筋膜与皮肤平行的区域手动测量皮下脂肪组织(SAT)厚度,并使用每个测量部位的平均值来计算身体密度和随后的%脂肪。使用具有先验计划对比度的重复测量方差分析来比较4C标准和两种超声方法之间的%脂肪值。在%FatIASMS之间观察到微小的无显著性平均差异(18.82 ± 14.21%脂肪,效果大小[ES] = 0.25,p = 0.178),%脂肪JP(18.23 ± 13.32%脂肪,ES = 0.32,p = 0.050)和%Fat4C标准(21.70 ± 7.57%脂肪);然而,%FatIASMS并没有产生比%FatJP更小的平均差异(p = 0.287)。此外,%FatIASMS(r = 0.90,p <; 0.001,估计的标准误差[SEE] = 3.29%)和%FatJP(r = 0.88,p <; 0.001,参见 = 3.60%)与4C标准有很强的相关性,然而,%FatIASMS并不比%FatJP产生更好的一致性(p = 0.257)。尽管略微低估了%脂肪,但两种超声技术都显示出与4C标准的良好-非常好的一致性,具有可比较的平均差异、相关性和SEE。与4C标准相比,使用SAT手动计算的国际医学与运动科学协会(IAMS)标准化方案与基于SKF位点的超声方案相当。这些结果表明,IAMS(具有手动测量的SAT)和基于SKF位点的超声方案可能对临床医生具有实际用途。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
5.60%
发文量
62
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信