Comparison of bioimpedance body composition in young adults in the Russian Children's Study

Background & aims: Body mass index is a simple anthropometric measure (kg/m²) used as an indirect estimate of body fat in individuals, and in assessments of population health and comparisons between populations. Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) is often used to provide additional information on body fat and fat-free mass, and has been used to generate body composition reference data in national health surveys. However, BIA measurements are known to be device-specific and there are few published studies comparing results from different BIA instruments. Therefore, we compared the performance of two BIA instruments in the Russian Children's Study (RCS) of male growth, pubertal development and maturation.

Methods: Paired BIA measurements were obtained using the Tanita BC-418MA (Tanita Corp., Tokyo, Japan) and ABC-01 'Medas' (Medas Ltd, Moscow, Russia) BIA instruments. Cross-sectional data on 236 RCS subjects aged 18-22 years were used for the BIA comparison and the development of a conversion formula between measured resistances; follow-up data (n = 96) were used for validation of the conversion formula.

Results: Whole-body resistances were highly correlated (Spearman rho = 0.95), but fat mass (FM) estimates were significantly higher with the Medas than the Tanita device (median difference 3.3 kg, 95% CI: 2.9, 3.6 kg) with large limits of agreement (LoA) for the FM difference (-2.0, 8.6 kg). A conversion formula between the resistances (Res) was obtained: Medas Res = 0.882 × Tanita Res+26.2 (r² = 0.91, SEE = 17.6 Ohm). After applying the conversion formula to Tanita data and application of the Medas assessment algorithm, the 'converted' Tanita FM estimates closely matched the Medas original estimates (median difference -0.1 kg, 95% CI: -0.3, 0.2 kg), with relatively small LoA for the FM difference (-2.3 to 2.1 kg), suggesting potential interchangeability of the ABC-01 'Medas' and Tanita BC-418MA data at the group level.

Conclusions: Our results support the importance of cross-calibration of BIA instruments for population comparisons and proper data interpretation in clinical and epidemiological studies.