Regional body composition: Cross-calibration of DXA scannersQDR4500W and discovery wi

Margaret K. Covey, Jean K. Berry, Eileen D. Hacker

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

14 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Differences exist in body composition assessed by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometers (DXAs) between devices produced by different manufacturers and different models from the same manufacturer. Cross-calibration is needed to allow body composition results to be compared in multicenter trials or when scanners are replaced. The aim was to determine reproducibility and extent of agreement between two fan-beam DXA scanners (QDR4500W, Discovery Wi) for body composition of regional sites. The sample was: 39 women 50.6 9.6 years old with BMI 26.8 5.5kg/m 2, body fat 33 7%. Four whole body scans (two on each device) were performed over 3 weeks. Major variables were fat mass, nonosseous lean mass, and bone mineral content (BMC) for the truncal and appendicular regions. Extent of agreement was assessed using Bland and Altman plots. Both devices demonstrated good precision with mean test-retest differences close to zero for fat mass, nonosseous lean mass, and BMC of the truncal and appendicular regions. Evaluation of interdevice agreement revealed significant differences for truncal and appendicular BMC, nonosseous lean mass, and fat mass. The greatest interdevice difference was for truncal fat mass (0.69 0.60kg). Differences in truncal and appendicular fat mass increased in magnitude at higher mean values. Furthermore, differences in truncal and appendicular fat mass were strongly related to BMI (R = 0.61, R = 0.55, respectively). In conclusion, in vivo cross-calibration is important to ensure comparability of regional body composition data between scanners, especially for truncal fat mass and for subjects with higher BMI.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)632-637
Number of pages6
JournalObesity
Volume18
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2010

Fingerprint

Body Composition
Calibration
Fats
X-Rays
Bone Density
Equipment and Supplies
Whole Body Imaging
Multicenter Studies
Adipose Tissue

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine (miscellaneous)
  • Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism
  • Endocrinology
  • Nutrition and Dietetics

Cite this

Regional body composition : Cross-calibration of DXA scannersQDR4500W and discovery wi. / Covey, Margaret K.; Berry, Jean K.; Hacker, Eileen D.

In: Obesity, Vol. 18, No. 3, 01.03.2010, p. 632-637.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Covey, Margaret K. ; Berry, Jean K. ; Hacker, Eileen D. / Regional body composition : Cross-calibration of DXA scannersQDR4500W and discovery wi. In: Obesity. 2010 ; Vol. 18, No. 3. pp. 632-637.
@article{3c59486fdec94abcabca82e6a0355f70,
title = "Regional body composition: Cross-calibration of DXA scannersQDR4500W and discovery wi",
abstract = "Differences exist in body composition assessed by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometers (DXAs) between devices produced by different manufacturers and different models from the same manufacturer. Cross-calibration is needed to allow body composition results to be compared in multicenter trials or when scanners are replaced. The aim was to determine reproducibility and extent of agreement between two fan-beam DXA scanners (QDR4500W, Discovery Wi) for body composition of regional sites. The sample was: 39 women 50.6 9.6 years old with BMI 26.8 5.5kg/m 2, body fat 33 7{\%}. Four whole body scans (two on each device) were performed over 3 weeks. Major variables were fat mass, nonosseous lean mass, and bone mineral content (BMC) for the truncal and appendicular regions. Extent of agreement was assessed using Bland and Altman plots. Both devices demonstrated good precision with mean test-retest differences close to zero for fat mass, nonosseous lean mass, and BMC of the truncal and appendicular regions. Evaluation of interdevice agreement revealed significant differences for truncal and appendicular BMC, nonosseous lean mass, and fat mass. The greatest interdevice difference was for truncal fat mass (0.69 0.60kg). Differences in truncal and appendicular fat mass increased in magnitude at higher mean values. Furthermore, differences in truncal and appendicular fat mass were strongly related to BMI (R = 0.61, R = 0.55, respectively). In conclusion, in vivo cross-calibration is important to ensure comparability of regional body composition data between scanners, especially for truncal fat mass and for subjects with higher BMI.",
author = "Covey, {Margaret K.} and Berry, {Jean K.} and Hacker, {Eileen D.}",
year = "2010",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1038/oby.2009.420",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "18",
pages = "632--637",
journal = "Obesity",
issn = "1930-7381",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Regional body composition

T2 - Cross-calibration of DXA scannersQDR4500W and discovery wi

AU - Covey, Margaret K.

AU - Berry, Jean K.

AU - Hacker, Eileen D.

PY - 2010/3/1

Y1 - 2010/3/1

N2 - Differences exist in body composition assessed by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometers (DXAs) between devices produced by different manufacturers and different models from the same manufacturer. Cross-calibration is needed to allow body composition results to be compared in multicenter trials or when scanners are replaced. The aim was to determine reproducibility and extent of agreement between two fan-beam DXA scanners (QDR4500W, Discovery Wi) for body composition of regional sites. The sample was: 39 women 50.6 9.6 years old with BMI 26.8 5.5kg/m 2, body fat 33 7%. Four whole body scans (two on each device) were performed over 3 weeks. Major variables were fat mass, nonosseous lean mass, and bone mineral content (BMC) for the truncal and appendicular regions. Extent of agreement was assessed using Bland and Altman plots. Both devices demonstrated good precision with mean test-retest differences close to zero for fat mass, nonosseous lean mass, and BMC of the truncal and appendicular regions. Evaluation of interdevice agreement revealed significant differences for truncal and appendicular BMC, nonosseous lean mass, and fat mass. The greatest interdevice difference was for truncal fat mass (0.69 0.60kg). Differences in truncal and appendicular fat mass increased in magnitude at higher mean values. Furthermore, differences in truncal and appendicular fat mass were strongly related to BMI (R = 0.61, R = 0.55, respectively). In conclusion, in vivo cross-calibration is important to ensure comparability of regional body composition data between scanners, especially for truncal fat mass and for subjects with higher BMI.

AB - Differences exist in body composition assessed by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometers (DXAs) between devices produced by different manufacturers and different models from the same manufacturer. Cross-calibration is needed to allow body composition results to be compared in multicenter trials or when scanners are replaced. The aim was to determine reproducibility and extent of agreement between two fan-beam DXA scanners (QDR4500W, Discovery Wi) for body composition of regional sites. The sample was: 39 women 50.6 9.6 years old with BMI 26.8 5.5kg/m 2, body fat 33 7%. Four whole body scans (two on each device) were performed over 3 weeks. Major variables were fat mass, nonosseous lean mass, and bone mineral content (BMC) for the truncal and appendicular regions. Extent of agreement was assessed using Bland and Altman plots. Both devices demonstrated good precision with mean test-retest differences close to zero for fat mass, nonosseous lean mass, and BMC of the truncal and appendicular regions. Evaluation of interdevice agreement revealed significant differences for truncal and appendicular BMC, nonosseous lean mass, and fat mass. The greatest interdevice difference was for truncal fat mass (0.69 0.60kg). Differences in truncal and appendicular fat mass increased in magnitude at higher mean values. Furthermore, differences in truncal and appendicular fat mass were strongly related to BMI (R = 0.61, R = 0.55, respectively). In conclusion, in vivo cross-calibration is important to ensure comparability of regional body composition data between scanners, especially for truncal fat mass and for subjects with higher BMI.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77249121033&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77249121033&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1038/oby.2009.420

DO - 10.1038/oby.2009.420

M3 - Article

C2 - 19960003

AN - SCOPUS:77249121033

VL - 18

SP - 632

EP - 637

JO - Obesity

JF - Obesity

SN - 1930-7381

IS - 3

ER -