Comparison of Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis with DXA in Adolescents with Cystic Fibrosis before and after a Resistance Training Intervention

Clifton J. Holmes, Susan B. Racette, Leslie Symonds, Ana Maria Arbeláez, Chao Cao and Andrea Granados
Additional contact information
Clifton J. Holmes: Program in Physical Therapy, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO 63108, USA
Susan B. Racette: Program in Physical Therapy, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO 63108, USA
Leslie Symonds: Department of Pediatrics, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO 63108, USA
Ana Maria Arbeláez: Department of Pediatrics, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO 63108, USA
Chao Cao: Program in Physical Therapy, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO 63108, USA
Andrea Granados: Nicklaus Children’s Hospital, Division of Pediatric Endocrinology and Metabolism, Miami, FL 33155, USA

IJERPH, 2022, vol. 19, issue 7, 1-13

Abstract: Background: The purpose of this pilot study was to compare body composition metrics obtained by two portable bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) devices with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) among adolescents with cystic fibrosis (CF) before and after a resistance exercise training program. Methods: Participants with CF were assessed using DXA, single-frequency BIA (SFBIA), and multiple-frequency BIA (MFBIA) to quantify percent body fat (%Fat), fat mass (FM), and fat-free mass (FFM) at baseline and after a home-based resistance training intervention comprised of 36, 1 h sessions completed in 12–14 weeks. Repeated measures analysis of variance, paired samples t -tests, Cohen’s d effect sizes, and Pearson’s correlations were used to compare differences between and within methods at baseline and post-intervention. Results: Ten participants (15.8 ± 2.2 yr, 60.1 ± 15.1 kg) completed the assessments. At baseline, both SFBIA and MFBIA scales significantly underestimated %Fat and FM and overestimated FFM, with small to moderate effect sizes. Post-intervention, small, non-significant differences were found between DXA and both BIA scales for all body composition metrics. Significant changes in %Fat and FFM were observed with DXA. MFBIA displayed less constant error than SFBIA when compared to DXA for pre- and post-intervention assessments for %Fat (MFBIA: pre and post −2.8 and −0.8 vs. SFBIA: −4.6 and −2.0), FM (−0.4 and −0.4 vs. −3.0 and −1.1), and FFM (+0.8 and +0.6 vs. +3.1 and +1.3). Near-perfect correlations were observed at both time points between DXA and each BIA scale. Conclusions: Portable BIA results should be interpreted with caution, and further validation studies in CF patients are needed prior to clinical use.

Keywords: body composition; fat mass; muscle mass; nutritional status; diabetes; impaired glucose tolerance (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/7/4037/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/7/4037/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:7:p:4037-:d:781981

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().