Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Assessment of EchoMRI-AH versus dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry to measure human body composition

Abstract

Background:

The sensitivity to detect small changes in body composition (fat mass and fat-free mass) largely depends on the precision of the instrument. We compared EchoMRI-AH and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) (Hologic QDR-4500A) for estimating fat mass in 301 volunteers.

Methods:

Body composition was evaluated in 136 males and 165 females with a large range of body mass index (BMI) (19−49 kg m−2) and age (19−91 years old) using DXA and EchoMRI-AH. In a subsample of 13 lean (BMI=19–25 kg m−2) and 21 overweight/obese (BMI>25 kg m−2) individuals, within-subject precision was evaluated from repeated measurements taken within 1 h (n=3) and 1 week apart (mean of three measurements taken on each day).

Results:

Using Bland–Altman analysis, we compared the mean of the fat mass measurements versus the difference in fat mass measured by both instruments. We found that EchoMRI-AH quantified larger amount of fat versus DXA in non-obese (BMI<30 kg m−2 (1.1 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI95):−3.7 to 6.0)) and obese (BMI30 kg m−2 (4.2 kg, CI95:−1.4 to 9.8)) participants. Within-subject precision (coefficient of variation, %) in fat mass measured within 1 h was remarkably better when measured by EchoMRI-AH than DXA (<0.5 versus <1.5%, respectively; P<0.001). However, 1-week apart within-subject variability showed similar values for both instruments (<2.2%; P=0.15).

Conclusions:

EchoMRI-AH yielded greater fat mass values when compared with DXA (Hologic QDR-4500A), particularly in fatter subjects. EchoMRI-AH and DXA showed similar 1-week apart precision when fat mass was measured both in lean and overweight/obese individuals.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kopelman PG . Obesity as a medical problem. Nature 2000; 404: 635–643.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Cawthorne MA . Opportunities and challenges for the development of pharmacological therapies for obesity treatment. Obes Rev 2007; 8 (Suppl 1): 131–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Aronne LJ, Wadden T, Isoldi KK, Woodworth KA . When prevention fails: obesity treatment strategies. Am J Med 2009; 122 (4 Suppl 1): S24–S32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Taicher GZ, Tinsley FC, Reiderman A, Heiman ML . Quantitative magnetic resonance (QMR) method for bone and whole-body-composition analysis. Anal Bioanal Chem 2003; 377: 990–1002.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Napolitano A, Miller SR, Murgatroyd PR, Coward WA, Wright A, Finer N et al. Validation of a quantitative magnetic resonance method for measuring human body composition. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2008; 16: 191–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bland JM, Altman DG . Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1: 307–310.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Jebb SA . Measurement of soft tissue composition by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry. Br J Nutr 1997; 77: 151–163.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Plank LD . Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and body composition. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 2005; 8: 305–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Pietrobelli A, Formica C, Wang Z, Heymsfield SB . Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry body composition model: review of physical concepts. Am J Physiol 1996; 271 (6 Part 1): E941–E951.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Jebb SA, Goldberg GR, Jennings G, Elia M . Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry measurements of body composition: effects of depth and tissue thickness, including comparisons with direct analysis. Clin Sci (Lond) 1995; 88: 319–324.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Schoeller DA, Tylavsky FA, Baer DJ, Chumlea WC, Earthman CP, Fuerst T et al. QDR 4500A dual-energy X-ray absorptiometer underestimates fat mass in comparison with criterion methods in adults. Am J Clin Nutr 2005; 81: 1018–1025.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Widjaja A, Morris RJ, Levy JC, Frayn KN, Manley SE, Turner RC . Within- and between-subject variation in commonly measured anthropometric and biochemical variables. Clin Chem 1999; 45: 561–566.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by a CNRU P30 grant DK072476 (ER). JEG was supported by a fellowship from The International Nutrition Foundation/Ellison Medical Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E Ravussin.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Galgani, J., Smith, S. & Ravussin, E. Assessment of EchoMRI-AH versus dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry to measure human body composition. Int J Obes 35, 1241–1246 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/ijo.2010.268

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ijo.2010.268

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links