4.6 Article

Body composition in taller individuals using DXA: A validation study for athletic and non-athletic populations

期刊

JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES
卷 31, 期 4, 页码 405-413

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2012.734918

关键词

fat mass; bone mineral content; lean mass; athletes; dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry

资金

  1. Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology [PTDC/DES/098963/2008, SFRH/BD/46503/2008]
  2. Capes Foundation within the Ministry of Education, Brazil [BEX 3014/10-0, BEX 2018/10-1, BEX 8827/11-7]
  3. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BD/46503/2008] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) cannot be used to evaluate participants taller than the scan area. We aimed to analyse the accuracy of bone mineral content, fat mass, and lean mass assessed with DXA whole-body scan and from the sum of two scans (head and trunk plus limbs). Participants were 31 athletes (13 males and 18 females) and 65 non-athletes (34 males and 31 females), that fit within the DXA scan area. Three scans were performed using a Hologic Explorer-W fan-beam densitometer: a whole-body scan used as the reference; a head scan; and a trunk and limbs scan. The sum of the head scan and the trunk and limbs scan was used as the alternative procedure. Multiple regression and agreement analysis were performed. Non-significant differences between methods were observed for fat mass (0.06kg) and lean mass (0.07kg) while bone mineral content from the alternative procedure differed from the reference scan (0.009kg). The alternative procedure explained>99% of the variance in the reference scan and low limits of agreement were observed. Precision analysis indicated low pure errors and the higher coefficients of variation were found for fat mass (whole-body: 3.70%; subtotal: 4.05%). The method proposed is a valid and simple solution to be used in individuals taller than the DXA scan area, including athletes engaged in sports recognised for including very tall competitors.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据