Michelle Bai, Daniella Susic, Anthony J O'Sullivan, Amanda Henry
{"title":"妊娠期生物电阻抗分析的可重复性以及身体成分与妊娠期糖尿病风险的关系:一项MUMS队列的亚研究","authors":"Michelle Bai, Daniella Susic, Anthony J O'Sullivan, Amanda Henry","doi":"10.1155/2020/3128767","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) is a rapid and noninvasive method of body composition analysis; however, reproducibility between BIA instruments in pregnancy is uncertain. Adverse maternal body composition has been linked to pregnancy complications including gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). This study aimed to evaluate the reproducibility of three BIA instruments in pregnancy and analyse the relationship between the body composition and the GDM risk.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A prospective cohort (<i>n</i> = 117) of women with singleton pregnancies participating in the Microbiome Understanding in Maternity Study (MUMS) at St. George Hospital, Sydney, Australia. Anthropometric measurements and BIA body composition were measured at ≤13 weeks (T1), 20-24 weeks (T2), and 32-36 weeks (T3) of gestation. Body fat percentage (BFP), total body water (TBW), and impedance were estimated by three BIA instruments: Bodystat 1500, RJL Quantum III, and Tanita BC-587. GDM status was recorded after 75 g oral glucose tolerance test was performed at 28 weeks or earlier. Agreement between BIA instruments was assessed using Bland-Altman analysis. Logistic regression modelling explored associations of BFP with GDM.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Method comparison reproducibility between Bodystat and RJL was stronger than between Bodystat and Tanita for both BFP and TBW% at all three time points. RJL overestimated BFP on average by 3.3% (<i>p</i> < 0.001), with limits of agreement within ±5% for all trimesters. Average BFP was not significantly different between Tanita and Bodystat although limits of agreement exceeded ±5%. GDM diagnosis was independently associated with increased BFP in T1 (adjusted OR 1.117 per 1% increase; 95% CI 1.020-1.224; <i>p</i>=0.017) and in T2 (adjusted OR 1.113 per 1% increase; 95% CI 1.010-1.226; <i>p</i>=0.031) and with Asian ethnicity in all models (OR 7.4-8.1).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Reproducibility amongst instruments was moderate; therefore, interchangeability between instruments, particularly for research purposes, cannot be assumed. In this cohort, GDM risk was modestly associated with increasing BFP and strongly associated with Asian ethnicity.</p>","PeriodicalId":16628,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Obesity","volume":"2020 ","pages":"3128767"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2020/3128767","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reproducibility of Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis in Pregnancy and the Association of Body Composition with the Risk of Gestational Diabetes: A Substudy of MUMS Cohort.\",\"authors\":\"Michelle Bai, Daniella Susic, Anthony J O'Sullivan, Amanda Henry\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2020/3128767\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) is a rapid and noninvasive method of body composition analysis; however, reproducibility between BIA instruments in pregnancy is uncertain. Adverse maternal body composition has been linked to pregnancy complications including gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). This study aimed to evaluate the reproducibility of three BIA instruments in pregnancy and analyse the relationship between the body composition and the GDM risk.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A prospective cohort (<i>n</i> = 117) of women with singleton pregnancies participating in the Microbiome Understanding in Maternity Study (MUMS) at St. George Hospital, Sydney, Australia. Anthropometric measurements and BIA body composition were measured at ≤13 weeks (T1), 20-24 weeks (T2), and 32-36 weeks (T3) of gestation. Body fat percentage (BFP), total body water (TBW), and impedance were estimated by three BIA instruments: Bodystat 1500, RJL Quantum III, and Tanita BC-587. GDM status was recorded after 75 g oral glucose tolerance test was performed at 28 weeks or earlier. Agreement between BIA instruments was assessed using Bland-Altman analysis. Logistic regression modelling explored associations of BFP with GDM.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Method comparison reproducibility between Bodystat and RJL was stronger than between Bodystat and Tanita for both BFP and TBW% at all three time points. RJL overestimated BFP on average by 3.3% (<i>p</i> < 0.001), with limits of agreement within ±5% for all trimesters. Average BFP was not significantly different between Tanita and Bodystat although limits of agreement exceeded ±5%. GDM diagnosis was independently associated with increased BFP in T1 (adjusted OR 1.117 per 1% increase; 95% CI 1.020-1.224; <i>p</i>=0.017) and in T2 (adjusted OR 1.113 per 1% increase; 95% CI 1.010-1.226; <i>p</i>=0.031) and with Asian ethnicity in all models (OR 7.4-8.1).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Reproducibility amongst instruments was moderate; therefore, interchangeability between instruments, particularly for research purposes, cannot be assumed. In this cohort, GDM risk was modestly associated with increasing BFP and strongly associated with Asian ethnicity.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16628,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Obesity\",\"volume\":\"2020 \",\"pages\":\"3128767\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2020/3128767\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Obesity\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/3128767\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Obesity","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/3128767","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9
摘要
生物电阻抗分析(BIA)是一种快速、无创的身体成分分析方法;然而,BIA器械在妊娠期的重复性尚不确定。不良的母体身体成分与妊娠并发症有关,包括妊娠糖尿病(GDM)。本研究旨在评估三种BIA仪器在妊娠期的可重复性,并分析体成分与GDM风险的关系。方法:一项前瞻性队列研究(n = 117)单胎妊娠妇女参加了澳大利亚悉尼圣乔治医院的产妇微生物组研究(MUMS)。分别在妊娠≤13周(T1)、20-24周(T2)和32-36周(T3)测量人体测量值和BIA体成分。采用Bodystat 1500、RJL Quantum III和Tanita BC-587三种BIA仪器测量体脂率(BFP)、全身水分(TBW)和阻抗。在28周或更早进行75 g口服葡萄糖耐量试验后记录GDM状态。使用Bland-Altman分析评估BIA仪器之间的一致性。Logistic回归模型探讨了BFP与GDM的关系。结果:Bodystat和RJL在三个时间点的BFP和TBW%的方法比较重现性强于Bodystat和Tanita。RJL平均高估了BFP 3.3% (p < 0.001),所有妊娠期的一致性限制在±5%以内。平均BFP在Tanita和Bodystat之间没有显着差异,尽管一致性限制超过±5%。GDM诊断与T1期BFP升高独立相关(调整OR为1.117 / 1%;95% ci 1.020-1.224;p=0.017)和T2(每增加1%调整OR为1.113;95% ci 1.010-1.226;p=0.031),所有模型均与亚洲种族相关(OR 7.4-8.1)。结论:各仪器的重复性为中等;因此,不能假定仪器之间的互换性,特别是用于研究目的。在这个队列中,GDM风险与BFP的增加有一定的相关性,与亚洲种族有很强的相关性。
Reproducibility of Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis in Pregnancy and the Association of Body Composition with the Risk of Gestational Diabetes: A Substudy of MUMS Cohort.
Introduction: Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) is a rapid and noninvasive method of body composition analysis; however, reproducibility between BIA instruments in pregnancy is uncertain. Adverse maternal body composition has been linked to pregnancy complications including gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). This study aimed to evaluate the reproducibility of three BIA instruments in pregnancy and analyse the relationship between the body composition and the GDM risk.
Methods: A prospective cohort (n = 117) of women with singleton pregnancies participating in the Microbiome Understanding in Maternity Study (MUMS) at St. George Hospital, Sydney, Australia. Anthropometric measurements and BIA body composition were measured at ≤13 weeks (T1), 20-24 weeks (T2), and 32-36 weeks (T3) of gestation. Body fat percentage (BFP), total body water (TBW), and impedance were estimated by three BIA instruments: Bodystat 1500, RJL Quantum III, and Tanita BC-587. GDM status was recorded after 75 g oral glucose tolerance test was performed at 28 weeks or earlier. Agreement between BIA instruments was assessed using Bland-Altman analysis. Logistic regression modelling explored associations of BFP with GDM.
Results: Method comparison reproducibility between Bodystat and RJL was stronger than between Bodystat and Tanita for both BFP and TBW% at all three time points. RJL overestimated BFP on average by 3.3% (p < 0.001), with limits of agreement within ±5% for all trimesters. Average BFP was not significantly different between Tanita and Bodystat although limits of agreement exceeded ±5%. GDM diagnosis was independently associated with increased BFP in T1 (adjusted OR 1.117 per 1% increase; 95% CI 1.020-1.224; p=0.017) and in T2 (adjusted OR 1.113 per 1% increase; 95% CI 1.010-1.226; p=0.031) and with Asian ethnicity in all models (OR 7.4-8.1).
Conclusion: Reproducibility amongst instruments was moderate; therefore, interchangeability between instruments, particularly for research purposes, cannot be assumed. In this cohort, GDM risk was modestly associated with increasing BFP and strongly associated with Asian ethnicity.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Obesity is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that provides a multidisciplinary forum for basic and clinical research as well as applied studies in the areas of adipocyte biology & physiology, lipid metabolism, metabolic syndrome, diabetes, paediatric obesity, genetics, behavioural epidemiology, nutrition & eating disorders, exercise & human physiology, weight control and health risks associated with obesity.