Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2023 Jan 1.
Published in final edited form as: Eur J Clin Nutr. 2021 Mar 26;76(1):111–118. doi: 10.1038/s41430-021-00899-1

Table 3.

Agreement between 3- and 4-compartment body composition models using body volume derived from a digital image, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, and underwater weighing in healthy adults.


Limits of agreement
M ± SD p ES r rc SEE TE CE ± 1.96 SD Upper Lower Trend
BVUWW 69.53 ± 11.42
BVDXA-Smith-Ryan 69.59 ± 11.78 0.601 0.01 0.998** 0.73 0.25 0.06 ± 1.60 1.53 −1.66 0.443*
BVIMAGE 69.64 ± 11.57 0.267 0.01 0.998** 0.67 0.33 0.11 ± 1.34 1.45 −1.23 0.224
%Fat4C-UWW 18.05 ± 6.40
%Fat4C-DXA-Smith-Ryan 18.04 ± 6.39 0.988 0.00 0.876** 0.876 3.11 3.14 0.01 ± 6.24 6.94 −5.54 −0.006
%Fat3C-IMAGE 19.46 ± 6.08 <.001 0.22 0.939** 0.914 2.22 2.60 1.41 ± 4.31 5.72 −2.89 −0.152

BV body volume, CE constant error, DXA dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, ES effect size, FM fat mass, FFM fat-free mass, IMAGE 2D image analysis program, M mean, r Pearson Product Moment correlation coefficient, rc Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient, SD standard deviation, SEE standard error of the estimate, TE total error, UWW underwater weighing, 3C 3-compartment, 4C 4-compartment, %Fat relative adiposity.

*

p < 0.05.

**

p < 0.001.