155 Body composition measurement methods in preterm infants 7 Results Quality assessment Bias fat mass percentage -1 % Limits of agreement + 5.8 %, i.e. poor agreement (study population mean fat mass percentage 3.2%) Bias fat free mass density g/ml -0.002 g/ml Limits of agreement + 0.012 g/ml, i.e. good agreement (study population mean fat free mass density 1.06 g/ml) 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 + Precision of ADP was assessed in 57 preterm infants Bias for fat mass percentage 0.15% between repeated ADP measurements Limits of agreement + 2.2%, i.e. poor agreement between repeated ADP measurements (study population mean fat mass percentage 9.2%) Accuracy was assessed in subgroup of 10 preterm infants Bias fat mass percentage 0.32 % Limits of agreement + 3.1 %, i.e. poor agreement (study population mean fat mass percentage 6.0 %) Interdevice reliability was assessed in a subgroup of 12 preterm and term infants Bias fat mass percentage 0.42 % Limits of agreement + 2.29 %, i.e. poor agreement (study population mean fat mass percentage 8.8%) 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 –
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw