TY - JOUR
T1 - Body composition in preterm infants
T2 - a systematic review on measurement methods
AU - Yumani, Dana F. J.
AU - de Jongh, Dide
AU - Ket, Johannes C. F.
AU - Lafeber, Harrie N.
AU - van Weissenbruch, Mirjam M.
N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2022, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to the International Pediatric Research Foundation, Inc.
PY - 2022
Y1 - 2022
N2 - Background: There are several methods to measure body composition in preterm infants. Yet, there is no agreement on which method should be preferred. Methods: PubMed, Embase.com, Wiley/Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched for studies that reported on the predictive value or validity of body composition measurements in preterms, up to 6 months corrected age. Results: Nineteen out of 1884 identified studies were included. Predictive equations based on weight and length indices, body area circumferences, skinfold thickness, bioelectrical impedance, and ultrasound did not show agreement with body composition measured with air displacement plethysmography (ADP), dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or isotope dilution. ADP agreed well with fat mass density measured by isotope dilution (bias −0.002 g/ml, limits of agreement ±0.012 g/ml, n = 14). Fat mass percentage measured with ADP did not agree well with fat mass percentage measured by isotope dilution (limits of agreement up to ±5.8%) and the bias between measurements was up to 2.2%. DXA, MRI, and isotope dilution were not compared to another reference method in preterms. Conclusions: DXA, ADP, and isotope dilution methods are considered trustworthy validated techniques. Nevertheless, this review showed that these methods may not yield comparable results. Impact: Based on validation studies that were conducted in a limited number of study subjects, weight and length indices, body area circumferences, skinfold thickness, bioelectrical impedance, and ultrasound seem to be a poor representation of body composition in preterm infants.DXA, ADP, and isotope dilution methods are considered trustworthy and validated techniques. Nevertheless, these methods may not yield comparable results.
AB - Background: There are several methods to measure body composition in preterm infants. Yet, there is no agreement on which method should be preferred. Methods: PubMed, Embase.com, Wiley/Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched for studies that reported on the predictive value or validity of body composition measurements in preterms, up to 6 months corrected age. Results: Nineteen out of 1884 identified studies were included. Predictive equations based on weight and length indices, body area circumferences, skinfold thickness, bioelectrical impedance, and ultrasound did not show agreement with body composition measured with air displacement plethysmography (ADP), dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or isotope dilution. ADP agreed well with fat mass density measured by isotope dilution (bias −0.002 g/ml, limits of agreement ±0.012 g/ml, n = 14). Fat mass percentage measured with ADP did not agree well with fat mass percentage measured by isotope dilution (limits of agreement up to ±5.8%) and the bias between measurements was up to 2.2%. DXA, MRI, and isotope dilution were not compared to another reference method in preterms. Conclusions: DXA, ADP, and isotope dilution methods are considered trustworthy validated techniques. Nevertheless, this review showed that these methods may not yield comparable results. Impact: Based on validation studies that were conducted in a limited number of study subjects, weight and length indices, body area circumferences, skinfold thickness, bioelectrical impedance, and ultrasound seem to be a poor representation of body composition in preterm infants.DXA, ADP, and isotope dilution methods are considered trustworthy and validated techniques. Nevertheless, these methods may not yield comparable results.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85136539937&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-022-02262-x
DO - https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-022-02262-x
M3 - Review article
C2 - 35995939
SN - 0031-3998
JO - Pediatric Research
JF - Pediatric Research
ER -