Comparison of the Lunar DPX-L and Prodigy dual-energy X-ray absorptiometers for assessing total and regional body composition.

Academic Article

Abstract

  • The purpose of this study was to assess the agreement of the Lunar DPX-L with the newer Prodigy dual-energy X-ray absorptiometer (DXA) for determining total-body and regional (arms, legs, trunk) bone mineral density (BMD), bone mineral content (BMC), fat mass (FM), lean tissue mass (LTM), total body mass (BM) and percent fat. A total of 106 apparently healthy males (n=34) and females (n=72) between the ages of 8-72 years were scanned consecutively on the DPX-L (software version 1.35) and Prodigy DXA (enCORE v. 3.6 software). Paired t-tests indicated significantly higher measures by Prodigy for BM (percent difference= 1.1%) and total-body BMD (2.2%), BMC (2.9%), FM (3.5%), and percent fat (2.8%; P<0.001), but not LTM (-0.2%). Regional estimates of FM and bone tended to be overestimated by Prodigy relative to DPX-L. The percent difference was most pronounced for FM in the arms (14.2%) and trunk (8.5%), BMD in the legs (4.9%), LTM in arms (5.6%), and BMC in the trunk (5.9%); but all total-body and regional measures were strongly and significantly correlated (P<0.001). The method of Bland and Altman indicated that the Prodigy overestimated DPX-L for BM (r=0.343; P<0.001), and total-body measures of BMD (r=0.460; P<0.001), and BMC (r=0.321; P<0.001) at higher values, as indicated by the significant, positive association between difference (Prodigy-DPX-L) versus mean ((Prodigy+DPX-L)/2). Regionally, Prodigy overestimated DPX-L for BMD in the legs, BMC in the legs and trunk, and FM in the arms at higher values (P<0.001). In contrast, FM in the legs was underestimated by Prodigy relative to DPX-L at higher values (P<0.001), and no regional bias was observed for LTM. In conclusion, we recommend that correction equations be used for comparing BM, total-body BMD and BMC, and regionally for BMD in the legs, BMC in the legs and trunk, and FM in the arms and legs. The use of correction equations for other estimates is not required for making direct comparisons.
  • Author List

  • Huffman DM; Landy NM; Potter E; Nagy TR; Gower BA
  • Start Page

  • 25
  • End Page

  • 30
  • Volume

  • 3
  • Issue

  • 1