Editorial Type:
Analytic Techniques

Comparison of a bioimpedance monitor with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry for noninvasive estimation of percentage body fat in dogs

Alexander J. German Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Leahurst Campus, University of Liverpool, Neston, Wirral CH64 7TE, England

Search for other papers by Alexander J. German in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
 BVSc, PhD
,
Shelley L. Holden Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Leahurst Campus, University of Liverpool, Neston, Wirral CH64 7TE, England

Search for other papers by Shelley L. Holden in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
,
Penelope J. Morris WALTHAM Centre for Pet Nutrition, Freeby Ln, Waltham-on-the-Wolds, Melton Mowbray LE14 4RT, England

Search for other papers by Penelope J. Morris in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
 BSc, PhD
, and
Vincent Biourge Royal Canin Research Center, BP 4, 650 Ave de la Petite Camargue, Aimargues, France

Search for other papers by Vincent Biourge in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
 DVM, PhD
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.71.4.393
Volume/Issue:
Volume 71: Issue 4
Online Publication Date:
01 Apr 2010
Restricted access
Sign In Reprints and Permissions Purchase Article

Abstract

Objective—To assess performance of a portable bioimpedance monitor for measurement of body composition in dogs.

Animals—24 client-owned dogs.

Procedures—Percentage body fat was measured via dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) and with a portable bioimpedance monitor, and body condition score (BCS) was measured by use of a 9-integer scale.

Results—Although the precision of the bioimpedance monitor was good, this varied among dogs. Body position (standing vs sternal) had no effect on bioimpedance results. There was a significant association between results determined via DEXA and bioimpedance, but this association was weaker than between DEXA and BCS. When agreement was assessed via Bland-Altman plot, the bioimpedance monitor under- and overestimated values at high and low body fat percentages, respectively. In 9 dogs, body fat measurements were taken before and after weight loss to determine the proportional loss of tissue mass during weight management. There was a significant difference in the estimated percentage of weight lost as fat between the DEXA and bioimpedance methods.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Although percentage body fat measured by use of a portable bioimpedance monitor correlated well with values determined via DEXA, the imprecision and inaccuracy in dogs with high percentage body fat could make the monitor inappropriate for clinical practice.

Abstract

Objective—To assess performance of a portable bioimpedance monitor for measurement of body composition in dogs.

Animals—24 client-owned dogs.

Procedures—Percentage body fat was measured via dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) and with a portable bioimpedance monitor, and body condition score (BCS) was measured by use of a 9-integer scale.

Results—Although the precision of the bioimpedance monitor was good, this varied among dogs. Body position (standing vs sternal) had no effect on bioimpedance results. There was a significant association between results determined via DEXA and bioimpedance, but this association was weaker than between DEXA and BCS. When agreement was assessed via Bland-Altman plot, the bioimpedance monitor under- and overestimated values at high and low body fat percentages, respectively. In 9 dogs, body fat measurements were taken before and after weight loss to determine the proportional loss of tissue mass during weight management. There was a significant difference in the estimated percentage of weight lost as fat between the DEXA and bioimpedance methods.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Although percentage body fat measured by use of a portable bioimpedance monitor correlated well with values determined via DEXA, the imprecision and inaccuracy in dogs with high percentage body fat could make the monitor inappropriate for clinical practice.

Contributor Notes

Supported by WALTHAM Centre for Pet Nutrition.

Address correspondence to Dr. German (ajgerman@liv.ac.uk).
Cover American Journal of Veterinary Research
American Journal of Veterinary Research
Publication Date:
01 Apr 2010
  • 1.

    German AJ. The growing problem of obesity in dogs and cats. J Nutr 2006;136:1940S–1946S.

  • 2.

    Mawby D, Bartges JW, d'Avignon A, et al.Comparison of various methods for estimating body fat in dogs. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 2004;40:109–114.

  • 3.

    Speakman JR, Booles D, Butterwick R. Validation of dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) by comparison with chemical analysis of dogs and cats. Int J Obes 2001;25:439–447.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Raffan E, Holden SL, Cullingham F, et al.Standardized positioning is essential for precise determination of body composition using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry in dogs. J Nutr 2006;136:1976S–1978S.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Laflamme D. Development and validation of a body condition score system for dogs. Canine Pract 1997;22 (4):10–15.

  • 6.

    German AJ, Holden SL, Moxham GL, et al.A simple reliable tool for owners to assess the body condition of their dog or cat. J Nutr 2006;136:2031S–2033S.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    McGreevy PD, Thomson PC, Pride C, et al.Prevalence of obesity in dogs examined by Australian veterinary practices and the risk factors involved. Vet Rec 2005;156:695–707.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Scarlett JM, Donoghue S. Associations between body condition and disease in cats. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1998;212:1725–1731.

  • 9.

    Doria-Rose VP, Scarlett JM. Mortality rates and causes of death among emaciated cats. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2000;216:347–351.

  • 10.

    Lund EM, Armstrong PJ, Kirk CA, et al.Prevalence and risk factors for obesity in adult dogs from private US veterinary practices. Int J Appl Res Vet Med 2006;4:177–186.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    Scheltinga MR, Helton WS, Rounds J, et al.Impedance electrodes positioned on proximal portions of limbs quantify fluid compartments in dogs. J Appl Physiol 1991;70:2039–2044.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    Stanton CA, Hamar DW, Johnson DE, et al.Bioelectrical impedance and zoometry for body composition analysis in domestic cats. Am J Vet Res 1992;53:251–257.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Patel RV, Matthie JR, Withers PO, et al.Estimation of total body and extracellular water using single- and multiple-frequency bioimpedance. Ann Pharmacother 1994;28:565–569.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Burkholder WJ. Precision and practicality of methods assessing body composition of dogs and cats. Compend Contin Educ Pract Vet 2001;23:1–10.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15.

    Free Patents Online Web site. Pet body fat measuring tool: United States patent application 20090076408. Available at: www.freepatentsonline.com/20090076408.html. Accessed Apr 6, 2009.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16.

    German AJ, Holden SL, Bissot T, et al.Dietary energy restriction and successful weight loss in obese client-owned dogs. J Vet Intern Med 2007;21:1174–1180.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17.

    Bland M, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing the difference between two methods of measurement. Lancet 1986;327:307–310.

  • 18.

    Lundorff A, Kjelgaard-Hansen M. Method comparison in the clinical laboratory. Vet Clin Pathol 2006;35:276–286.

Advertisement