Table 1.
Physical characteristics of the subjects1.
Fig 1.
BF%BIA8 and BF%DXA scatter plot and regression line (a) all participants (b) male subjects (C) female subjects; Bold line represents regression line, dotted line represents identical line.
Table 2.
Percentage body fat measured by standing-posture bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) and by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA)1.
Fig 2.
Bland-Altman plot of the difference between BF%BIA8 and BF%DXA in mean difference expressed as bias, 95% confidence interval expressed as bias ± 2 SD.
(a) Total subjects (n = 711); bias ± SD: -3.72 ± 4.09%, bias– 2SD: -11.90%, bias + 2 SD: 4.46%, regression equation y = - 0.170 x + 0.430 (r = 0.42, P < 0.01); (b) Male (n = 412); bias ± SD: -3.66 ± 4.24%, bias– 2SD: -12.14%, bias + 2 SD: 4.83%, regression equation y = - 0.340 x + 2.830(r = 0.61, P < 0.01); (c) Female (n = 299); bias ± SD: -3.81 ± 3.87%, bias– 2SD: -11.56%, bias + 2 SD: 3.94%, regression equation y = - 0.187 x +2.134 (r = 0.41, P < 0.01).
Fig 3.
BF% dependent bias of BIA8 compared with DXA in (a) total (n = 711), (b) male (n = 412), and (c) female (n = 299). Data are presented as the mean difference ± SD. Means with symbol are significantly different, P< 0.001 (**).
Table 3.
Body fat percentage outcome of analyses by ordinary least products regression.
Fig 4.
Scatter and regression plots of BF%DXA according to FFMBIA8 and FFMDXA differences.
(a) total subjects (n = 711), (b) male subjects (n = 412), and (c) female subjects (n = 299). The bold line represents the regression line.