4.2 Article

Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and body composition

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.mco.0000165010.31826.3d

关键词

body fat; fan-beam; four-compartment model; pencil-beam; regional-body composition

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose of review Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry is now widely adopted for the measurement of the fat, fat-free soft tissue and bone mineral compartments of the body. Whereas it is regarded by many as a reference technique for such measurements, it is not without limitations. Inter and intra-manufacturer differences have been areas of concern. This review focuses on recent literature addressing these areas and the issue of validity. Recent findings Body composition measurements using newer generation dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry machines compared between different manufacturers and compared with earlier instruments continue to show differences that may be unacceptable, particularly for investigators upgrading their machines or involved in multicentre studies using different machines. In terms of validity, significant deviations at a group level are reported when compared with reference four-component models, and perhaps more importantly, wide limits of agreement are seen that are a concern for the interpretation of results at an individual level. Summary It is important that investigators recognize the limitations of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry technology in the interpretation of their results. There is a continuing need both for inter-machine comparisons and validation studies against accepted criterion methods, particularly as new software or technological changes are introduced. Such studies permit the development of translation equations for the cross-calibration of devices, and may be vital for cross-sectional studies. For longitudinal studies in many populations, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry is without question a valuable technique for the measurement of compositional changes, both at the total body and regional levels.

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

4.2
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