149 Body composition measurement methods in preterm infants 7 Results Quality assessment Weight and impedance index together explained 94% of the variance in fat free mass (g) Precision in prediction gained by impedance index was max 3.03% Bias fat free mass: -40 g (estimated with weight and impedance index) Limits of agreement + 20g, i.e. good agreement (mean fat free mass study population 2260 g) Level of evidence 2 Strengths & limitations Assessment of agreement with reference method + Assessment of intra- and interobserver variability – Repeated measurements – Coefficients of variance assessed – Sensitivity analysis – Bootstrapping analysis + External validation – Large study population + Exclusively preterm infants + Weight, length and the impedance index together explained 90% of the variance in TBW. Bias TBW 25.7 g (estimated with impedance alone) Limits of agreement TBW + 95 g, i.e. poor agreement (mean TBW study population 794 g) Level of evidence 4 Strengths & limitations Assessment of agreement with reference method + Assessment of intra- and interobserver variability – Repeated measurements + Coefficients of variance assessed + Sensitivity analysis – Bootstrapping analysis – Cross validation group + External validation – Large study population – Exclusively preterm infants – Results include preterm infants, children and adults Together with weight the impedance index explained 99.5% of the variance in TBW Level of evidence 2 Strengths & limitations Assessment of agreement with reference method – Assessment of intra- and interobserver variability – Repeated measurements + Coefficients of variance assessed + Sensitivity analysis – Bootstrapping analysis – Cross validation group + External validation – Large study population – Exclusively preterm infants – Results include preterm as well as term infants Weight explained 99.2 % of the variance in TBW. The prediction model was significantly improved by adding the impedance index to the model: 99.5% of the variance explained and a smaller 95% CI of 165 vs 200 ml. Level of evidence 4 Strengths & limitations Assessment of agreement with reference method – Assessment of intra- and interobserver variability – Repeated measurements – Coefficients of variance assessed – Sensitivity analysis – Bootstrapping analysis – External validation –
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw