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.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Reply to readers’ comment on “Body weight difference between dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis attenuates the equivalence of body composition assessment”

European Journal of Clinical Nutrition volume 73, pages 809–810 (2019)Cite this article

Subjects

Safer raised a concern about the measurement bias of multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (MF-BIA) and requested a detail description of pretest protocol. As MF-BIA devices, especially InBody series, have been widely used in clinical practice and research activities in Korea, pretest conditions those are clarified clearly in manufacturer’s guideline have been followed essentially. In our work, MF-BIAs were measured after 8–10 h of fasting, a night of refrain of stimulants such as alcohol, caffeine drink, and exercise, within 30–60 min after collection of the urine sample and were performed between 9:30–10:00 AM. Participants with medication were asked to postpone their medication consumption until the completion of the measurement. As presented in the article, the women in the study are relatively old (aged 53–83 years) and most of them are menopausal. Furthermore, because the MF-BIAs have been conducted by trained technicians following a strict standard operating procedure, the measurement bias has been kept to a minimum.

Safer also concern about why we used MF-BIA for DXA validation study, but not other gold standard tools. In our study, the first finding that total mass estimated by DXA was relatively different with actual body weight (BW) in some individuals suggests a potential bias in body composition analysis (BCA) of this device, in term of the sum of body components. The second finding that a lower agreement between DXA body mass and actual BW (equivalent with BW measured by MF-BIA device) was associated with a lower agreement between DXA and MF-BIA in BCA solely suggests a need of calibration for DXA body mass in MF-BIA validation studies [1,2,3] those employed DXA as the reference. Obviously, whether the low agreement in BW of DXA scan induces any measurement bias in BCA by DXA should be examined using more precise BCA tools (e.g. four-compartment model) as the reference.

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

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

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

References

  1. Sillanpää E, Cheng S, Häkkinen K, Finni T, Walker S, Pesola A, et al. Body composition in 18- to 88-year-old adults–comparison of multifrequency bioimpedance and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Obesity. 2014;22:101–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Leahy S, O’Neill C, Sohun R, Jakeman P. A comparison of dual energy X-ray absorptiometry and bioelectrical impedance analysis to measure total and segmental body composition in healthy young adults. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2012;112:589–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Goran MI, Driscoll P, Johnson R, Nagy TR, Hunter G. Cross-calibration of body-composition techniques against dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in young children. Am J Clin Nutr. 1996;63:299–305.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research was supported by a fund (2014-E71003-00) from the research of Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Bio & Medical Technology Development Program of the National Research Foundation (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning (No. 2015M3A9B6027142 and 2015M3A9B6028310).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physiology, Ulsan College of Medicine, 388-1 Poongnap-dong, Songpa-Gu, Seoul, 138-736, Republic of Korea

    Duong Duc Pham & Chae Hun Leem

  2. Institute of Human Genomic study, Korea University Ansan Hospital, 123, Jeokeum-ro, Danwon-gu, Ansan-si, Gyeonggi-do, 15355, Republic of Korea

    Seung Ku Lee & Chol Shin

  3. Division of Pulmonary, Sleep, and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University Ansan Hospital, 123, Jeokeum-ro, Danwon-gu, Ansan-si, Gyeonggi-do, 15355, Republic of Korea

    Chol Shin

  4. Division of Endocrinology, Sleep, Korea University Ansan Hospital, 123, Jeokeum-ro, Danwon-gu, Ansan-si, Gyeonggi-do, 15355, Republic of Korea

    Nan Hee Kim

Authors
  1. Duong Duc Pham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Seung Ku Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chol Shin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nan Hee Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Chae Hun Leem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Chol Shin or Chae Hun Leem.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pham, D.D., Lee, S.K., Shin, C. et al. Reply to readers’ comment on “Body weight difference between dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis attenuates the equivalence of body composition assessment”. Eur J Clin Nutr 73, 809–810 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-019-0410-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-019-0410-4

Search

Advanced search

Quick links