Body composition in preterm infants: a systematic review on measurement methods

Dana F J Yumani1, Dide de Jongh2,3, Johannes C F Ket4

  • 1Department of Pediatrics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. d.yumani@amsterdamumc.nl.

Pediatric Research
|August 22, 2022
PubMed

Insights

Accurate body composition measurement in preterm infants remains challenging. While dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), air displacement plethysmography (ADP), and isotope dilution are trusted, their results may not be comparable.

Area of Science:

  • Neonatal research
  • Pediatric body composition analysis
  • Clinical measurement validation

Background:

  • Accurate body composition assessment is crucial for preterm infants, yet no single method is universally preferred.
  • Existing measurement techniques lack standardized agreement, complicating clinical practice and research.

Approach:

  • A systematic review of 1884 studies was conducted, focusing on body composition measurement validity in preterm infants up to 6 months corrected age.
  • Included studies compared various methods like bioelectrical impedance and ultrasound against reference standards such as dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), air displacement plethysmography (ADP), and isotope dilution.

Key Points:

  • Predictive equations using weight, length, circumferences, skinfolds, bioelectrical impedance, and ultrasound showed poor agreement with reference methods.
  • Air displacement plethysmography (ADP) demonstrated good agreement with isotope dilution for fat mass density but not for fat mass percentage.
  • Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and isotope dilution were not extensively compared against other reference methods in preterm populations.

Conclusions:

  • Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), air displacement plethysmography (ADP), and isotope dilution are considered validated and trustworthy techniques for assessing body composition in preterm infants.
  • Despite their validated status, significant variability exists between these methods, indicating potential discrepancies in results and the need for further standardization.
Abstract