A PRISMA-Driven Systematic Review of Predictive Equations for Assessing Fat and Fat-Free Mass in Healthy Children and Adolescents Using Multicomponent Molecular Models as the Reference Method

Abstract

Simple methods to assess both fat (FM) and fat-free mass (FFM) are required in paediatric populations. Several bioelectrical impedance instruments (BIAs) and anthropometric equations have been developed using different criterion methods (multicomponent models) for assessing FM and FFM. Through childhood, FFM density increases while FFM hydration decreases until reaching adult values. Therefore, multicomponent models should be used as the gold standard method for developing simple techniques because two-compartment models (2C model) rely on the assumed adult values of FFM density and hydration (1.1 g/cm3 and 73.2%, respectively). This study will review BIA and/or anthropometric-based equations for assessing body composition in paediatric populations. We reviewed English language articles from MEDLINE (1985–2012) with the selection of predictive equations developed for assessing FM and FFM using three-compartment (3C) and 4C models as criterion. Search terms included children, adolescent, childhood, adolescence, 4C model, 3C model, multicomponent model, equation, prediction, DXA, BIA, resistance, anthropometry, skinfold, FM, and FFM. A total of 14 studies (33 equations) were selected with the majority developed using DXA as the criterion method with a limited number of studies providing cross-validation results. Overall, the selected equations are useful for epidemiological studies, but some concerns still arise on an individual basis.

Body fat percentage comparisons between four methods in young football players: are they comparable?

“…At a molecular level, a four-component model (4C) of body composition divides body mass into fat, water, mineral and protein; a three-component model (3C), into fat, mineral and lean soft tissue; and a two-component model (2C), into fat and fat-free mass (1). The 4C model is considered as the gold standard to assess body composition in pediatric populations (2). Nevertheless, the use of a 4C model is not available for most researches due to its high economic cost and time involvement (2).…”

“…The 4C model is considered as the gold standard to assess body composition in pediatric populations (2). Nevertheless, the use of a 4C model is not available for most researches due to its high economic cost and time involvement (2). For example, dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), as a body composition analysis device, derives a 3C model, or air displacement plethysmography (ADP) uses a 2C model, therefore these two are not the most recommended methods to be used in children and adolescents (2).…”

“…Nevertheless, the use of a 4C model is not available for most researches due to its high economic cost and time involvement (2). For example, dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), as a body composition analysis device, derives a 3C model, or air displacement plethysmography (ADP) uses a 2C model, therefore these two are not the most recommended methods to be used in children and adolescents (2). Nevertheless, several studies have monitored the percentage of body fat (%BF) with DXA as well as ADP in these populations (3,4).…”

Mathematical model for body fat percentage of children with cerebral palsy

“…Among healthy children, these benchmarks are not yet fully established and among children with CP, it is not known how the morphological differences alter these values. Thus, DXA is indicated as the best technique for the measurement of BF% in children with CP, since other indirect methods such as underwater weighing and air displacement plethysmography require apneas and individuals must remain immobile for a long time (Oeffinger et al, 2014;Silva et al, 2013a).…”

Desarrollo Y Validación De Ecuaciones Para Estimar Composición Corporal en Niños De 4 a 6 Años De Uruguay.

“…Las variables independientes que mejor estimaron la variabilidad de la masa grasa fueron el P (66%), PS (59%) y PT (55%). Estas variables fueron también reportadas en varias ecuaciones desarrolladas previamente (10,28,37,38). El valor de R2 fue de 0,89 y el SRMSE de 0,68 kg; estos resultados son mejores que los señalados en el estudio de Velázquez et al (10) el cual presentó un R2 de 0,72.…”