Evidence Hub

Evaluation of Multi-Frequency Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis against Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry for Estimation of Low Muscle Mass in Older Hospitalized Patients

R. L. Nielsen, A. Andersen, T. Kallemose, Morten Damgaard, O. Bornæs, H. G. Juul-Larsen, Louise Westberg Strejby Christensen, B. Jawad et al.

Journal of Clinical Medicine, 2023

42 participants · 15 citations

Abstract

The accuracy of multi-frequency (MF) bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) to estimate low muscle mass in older hospitalized patients remains unclear. This study aimed to describe the ability of MF-BIA to identify low muscle mass as proposed by The Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) and The European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP-2) and examine the association between muscle mass, dehydration, malnutrition, and poor appetite in older hospitalized patients. In this prospective exploratory cohort study, low muscle mass was estimated with MF-BIA against dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) in 42 older hospitalized adults (≥65 years). The primary variable for muscle mass was appendicular skeletal muscle mass (ASM), and secondary variables were appendicular skeletal muscle mass index (ASMI) and fat-free mass index (FFMI). Cut-off values for low muscle mass were based on recommendations by GLIM and EWGSOP-2. MF-BIA was evaluated against DXA on the ability to estimate absolute values of muscle mass by mean bias, limits of agreement (LOA), and accuracy (5% and 10% levels). Agreement between MF-BIA and DXA to identify low muscle mass was evaluated with sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive value (PPV). The association between muscle mass, dehydration, malnutrition, and poor appetite was visually examined with boxplots. MF-BIA overestimated absolute values of ASM with a mean bias of 0.63 kg (CI:…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 42 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free