Journal of Nutrition LabDiet, Your World of Nutritional Answers

Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Erratum for Bosy-Westphal et al., J. Nutr. 135 (9) 2257-2262.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Search for Related Content
© 2006 American Society for Nutrition J. Nutr. 136:711, March 2006

Bosy-Westphal A., Danielzik S., Becker C., Geisler C., Onur S., Korth O., Bührens F., Müller M.J. Need for optimal body composition data analysis using air-displacement plethysmography in children and adolescents. J. Nutr. 2005 135:2257–62.

A typographical error in the k constant used to calculate the surface area artifact (SAA) from body surface area (BSA) led to a miscalculation. The correct k is –4.67 x 10–5 L/cm2. Accordingly, the mean SAA calculated from Haycock's formula [BSA (cm2) = 0.024265 x Wt (kg)0.5378 x Ht (cm)0.3964 x 10000] is –0.626 ± 0.163 L (–0.631 ± 0.174 L in boys and –0.625 ± 0.154 L in girls, respectively), which is not significantly different from the SAA calculated using DuBois' formula [BSA (cm2) = (Wt 0.425 x Ht 0.725) x 71.84], –0.627 ± 0.154 L (–0.633 ± 0.163L in boys and –0.624 ± 0.146L in girls, respectively) (P = 0.577, paired samples t test).

Although the bias is systematic, as shown in the Bland-Altman analysis (Table 4), the mean difference between the SAAs is low (0.0008 ± 0.0161 L). The mean overestimation of BSA calculated using Dubois' formula when compared to Haycock's formula is 16.1 ± 344.8cm2. This leads to a mean difference of 0.06 ± 0.15% fat mass (%FM calculated using DuBois' formula minus %FM calculated using Haycock's formula) (0.08 ± 0.16% in boys and 0.03 ± 0.15% in girls, respectively). The correct formula for Figure 1 is y = 0.9x + 8.7479, R2 = 0.94.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 4 Constituents of ADP analyses in girls and boys ranging in age from 6 to 18 y1

 
From the corrected data analysis, we conclude that the bias induced by using DuBois' instead of Haycock's formula for BSA calculation is small in children and adolescents (Table 5). The remaining results are unaffected by this recalculation. In accordance with our original conclusions, these revised calculations show that %FM in children and adolescents is overestimated when a density of 1.1g/cm3 for fat-free mass is assumed (~5% bias) and thoracic gas volume is predicted by equations based on adult data (~2% bias).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 5 Bias and 95% limits of agreement for SAA, TGV, and %FM derived from different equations

 




This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Search for Related Content

Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
Copyright © 2006 by American Society for Nutrition