Validation of Simple Epidemiological or Clinical Methods for the Measurement of Body Composition in Young Children

Diane M  Jackson; Zoe  Donaghy; Kurosh  Djafarian; John J  Reilly

Innovative Journal of Pediatrics

The Scientific Journal of Growth & Development Research Center

Outlines

Abstract
References
Copyright

Validation of Simple Epidemiological or Clinical Methods for the Measurement of Body Composition in Young Children

Author(s):

Diane M Jackson^1,*,

Zoe Donaghy²,

Kurosh Djafarian³,

John J Reilly⁴

Innovative Journal of Pediatrics:Vol. 24, issue 6; 685-691

Published online:Aug 16, 2014

Article type:Research Article

Received:Oct 10, 2013

Accepted:Aug 16, 2014

How to Cite:Diane M Jackson, Zoe Donaghy, Kurosh Djafarian, John J Reilly, Validation of Simple Epidemiological or Clinical Methods for the Measurement of Body Composition in Young Children.Inn J Pediatr.2014;24(6):685-691.

Abstract

Objective: The present study aimed to determine the validity of simple epidemiological and clinical methods for the assessment of body fatness in preschool children. Methods: In 89 children (42 boys, 47 girls; mean age 4.1 SD 1.3y) measures of body fatness were made using total body water (TBW), dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), air displacement plethysmography (BODPOD) and skinfold thickness. Methods were compared by Bland–Altman analysis using TBW as the reference method, and by paired comparisons and rank order correlations. Findings: Bias for DXA was +1.8% body fat percentage units (limits of agreement +15.5% to -11.9%), bias for BODPOD was -3.5% (limits of agreement +18.9% to -5.9%) and bias for skinfolds using the Slaughter equations was -6.5% (limits of agreement +10.0% to –23.1%). Significant rank order correlations with TBW measures of fatness were obtained for DXA estimates of fatness (r=0.54, P=0.01), but not for estimates of fat by skinfold thickness (r=0.20, P=0.2) or BODPOD (r=0.25, P=0.1). Differences between both DXA and BODPOD and the reference TBW estimates of body fatness were not significant (P=0.06 and P=0.1 respectively); however, the difference in estimated body fatness between skinfold thickness and TBW was significant (P

Keywords

Fulltext

Clic here to download PDF.

References

1.
Reference are available on the PDF.

comments