4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

A comparison of hydrostatic weighing plethysmography in adults with spinal and air displacement cord injury

Journal

ARCHIVES OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION
Volume 86, Issue 11, Pages 2106-2113

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2005.06.013

Keywords

body composition; densitometry; disabled persons; plethysmography; rehabilitation

Funding

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [K23 RR16182-01, M01 RR02602] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDA NIH HHS [K12 DA14040-03] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To compare (1) total body volume (V-b) and density (D-b) measurements obtained by hydrostatic weighing (HW) and air displacement plethysmography (ADP) in adults with spinal cord injury (SCI); (2) measured and predicted thoracic gas volume (V-TG); and (3) differences in percentage of fat measurements using ADP-obtained D-b and HW-obtained D-b measures that were interchanged in a 4-compartment body composition model (4-comp %fat). Design: Twenty adults with SCI underwent ADP and V-TG, and HW testing. In a subgroup (n=13) of subjects, 4-comp %fat procedures were computed. Setting: Research laboratories in a university setting. Participants: Twenty adults with SCI below the T3 vertebrae and motor complete paraplegia. Interventions: Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures: Statistical analyses, including determination of group mean differences, shared variance, total error, and 95% confidence intervals. Results: The 2 methods yielded small yet significantly different V-b and D-b. The groups' mean V-TG did not differ significantly, but the large relative differences indicated an unacceptable amount of individual error. When the 4-comp %fat measurements were compared, there was a trend toward significant differences (P=.08). Conclusions: ADP is a valid alternative method of determining the V-b and D-b in adults with SCI; however, the predicted V-TG should be used with caution.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available