全身与四肢瘦体重3种测量方法结果间的一致性评价——以生存分析与一致性图谱法为例

Consistency Evaluation of Multiple Measurements Results of Lean Body and Appendicular Lean Mass: Based on Survival Analysis and Consistency Mapping

Received:October 22, 2019

DOI：10.12064/ssr.20200112

中文关键词:全身瘦体重四肢瘦体重一致性分析生存分析生物电阻抗法双能X线吸收测定法

英文关键词:lean body mass appendicular lean mass consistency analysis survival analysis BIA DEXA

基金项目:国家重点研发计划（2017YFF0206601）；科技基础性工作专项（2013FY110200）；企事业单位委托项目（1708015）

Author Name	Affiliation	E-mail
XUE Yongtai	Research Center of Sports and Health Science, School of Physical Education, Northeast Normal University	xueyt442@nenu.edu.cn
XU Hongqi	Research Center of Sports and Health Science, School of Physical Education, Northeast Normal University	xuhq375@nenu.edu.cn
SHI Jipeng	Research Center of Sports and Health Science, School of Physical Education, Northeast Normal University
ZHANG Xin	Ergonomics Standardization Research Field, China National Institute of Standardization
LIU Jingmin	Research Center of Sports and Health Science, Division of Sports Science and Physical Education, Tsinghua University
CHEN We	Department of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition

Hits: 4109

Download times: 4929

中文摘要:

目的：通过对18~56岁成年人使用生物电阻抗法（BCA I、BCA II）与双能X线吸收测定法（DEXA）测量全身瘦体重（LM）与四肢瘦体重（ALM），明确不同身体成分测量仪测量国人瘦体重分布特征时的差异，详述一致性界限与生存分析法在评价两种或多种方法测量结果间的一致性应用过程。方法：采用BCA I、BCA II与DEXA 3种设备测量163名成年人的身体成分，采用一致性界限与生存分析法评价3种设备测量LM与ALM结果的一致性。结果：男女受试者LM、ALM测量结果在3种测试方法中均具有较高的相关性（P＜0.01），BCA I测量结果显著高于BCA II和DEXA，且都具有统计学意义（P＜0.05），BCA II与DEXA的一致性程度较好。结论：生存分析与一致性图谱法可用于两种或多种方法测量结果间的一致性评价，两者可结合使用。相对于BCA I，BCA II与DEXA测量值一致性程度更好。

英文摘要:

To evaluate the consistency between bioelectrical impedance (BCA I, BCA II) and dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA), clarify the differential distributions of lean body mass (LM) by different methods, and show the application of the consistency limit method and survival analysis in estimating the consistency between two or more test methods, lean body mass and appendicular lean mass (ALM) were measured by three methods above among adults aged 18-56 years. Methods: Body composition of 163 adults were measured by DEXA, BCA I and BCA II and lean weight of the whole body and each ring segment were therefore obtained, and then the consistency limit method and survival analysis were used to evaluate the consistency in measuring LM and ALM by three methods. Results: The values of LM and ALM had high correlation (P＜0.01) among the three test methods in both male and female subjects. The results of BCA I measurements were significantly higher than those of BCA II and DEXA, and they were all statistically significant (P＜0.05), the consistency of LM and ALM values between the two or among the three test devices, and the results suggested that BCA II and DEXA had high consistency with each other. Conclusion: The survival analysis and the consistency mapping method can be used to evaluate the consistency between the measurements results of two or more methods, and the two can be used in combination. Compared with the BCA I, BCA II and DEXA have a better degree of consistency.

View Full Text View/Add Comment Download PDF reader