Ramírez Vélez, Robinson
Loading...
Email Address
person.page.identifierURI
Birth Date
Job Title
Last Name
Ramírez Vélez
First Name
Robinson
person.page.departamento
Ciencias de la Salud
person.page.instituteName
ORCID
person.page.observainves
person.page.upna
Name
- Publications
- item.page.relationships.isAdvisorOfPublication
- item.page.relationships.isAdvisorTFEOfPublication
- item.page.relationships.isAuthorMDOfPublication
2 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Publication Open Access Predictive validity of the body adiposity index in overweight and obese adults using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry(MDPI, 2016) Ramírez Vélez, Robinson; Correa Bautista, Jorge Enrique; González-Ruíz, Katherine; Vivas, Andrés; García Hermoso, Antonio; Triana Reina, Héctor Reynaldo; Ciencias de la Salud; Osasun ZientziakThe body adiposity index (BAI) is a recent anthropometric measure proven to be valid in predicting body fat percentage (BF%) in some populations. However, the results have been inconsistent across populations. This study was designed to verify the validity of BAI in predicting BF% in a sample of overweight/obese adults, using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) as the reference method. A cross-sectional study was conducted in 48 participants (54% women, mean age 41.0 ± 7.3 years old). DEXA was used as the "gold standard" to determine BF%. Pearson¿s correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the association between BAI and BF%, as assessed by DEXA. A paired sample t-test was used to test differences in mean BF% obtained with BAI and DEXA methods. To evaluate the concordance between BF% as measured by DEXA and as estimated by BAI, we used Lin¿s concordance correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman agreement analysis. The correlation between BF% obtained by DEXA and that estimated by BAI was r = 0.844, p < 0.001. Paired t-test showed a significant mean difference in BF% between methods (BAI = 33.3 ± 6.2 vs. DEXA 39.0 ± 6.1; p < 0.001). The bias of the BAI was -6.0 ± 3.0 BF% (95% CI = -12.0 to 1.0), indicating that the BAI method significantly underestimated the BF% compared to the reference method. Lin¿s concordance correlation coefficient was considered stronger (rc = 0.923, 95% CI = 0.862 to 0.957). In obese adults, BAI presented low agreement with BF% measured by DEXA; therefore, BAI is not recommended for BF% prediction in this overweight/obese sample studied.Publication Open Access The role of body adiposity index in determining body fat percentage in colombian adults with overweight or obesity(MDPI, 2017) Ramírez Vélez, Robinson; Correa Bautista, Jorge Enrique; González-Ruíz, Katherine; Tordecilla Sanders, Alejandra; García Hermoso, Antonio; Schmidt Río-Valle, Jacqueline; González-Jiménez, Emilio; Ciencias de la Salud; Osasun ZientziakThe aim of this study is to investigate the accuracy of body adiposity index (BAI) as a convenient tool for assessing body fat percentage (BF%) in a sample of adults with overweight/obesity using bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA). The study population was composed of 96 volunteers (60% female, mean age 40.6 ± 7.5 years old). Anthropometric characteristics (body mass index, height, waist-to-height ratio, hip and waist circumference), socioeconomic status, and diet were assessed, and BF% was measured by BIA-BF% and by BAI-BF%. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the correlation between BAI-BF% and BF% assessed by BIA-BF%, while controlling for potential confounders. The concordance between the BF% measured by both methods was obtained with a paired sample t-test, Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient, and Bland-Altman plot analysis. Overall, the correlation between BF% obtained by BIA-BF% and estimated by BAI-BF% was r = 0.885, p < 0.001, after adjusting for potential confounders (age, socioeconomic status, and diet). Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient was moderate in both sexes. In the men, the paired t-test showed a significant mean difference in BF% between the methods (−5.6 (95% CI −6.4 to −4.8); p < 0.001). In the women, these differences were (−3.6 (95% CI −4.7 to −2.5); p < 0.001). Overall, the bias of the BAI-BF% was −4.8 ± 3.2 BF%; p < 0.001), indicating that the BAI-BF% method significantly underestimated the BF% in comparison with the reference method. In adults with overweight/obesity, the BAI presents low agreement with BF% measured by BIA-BF%; therefore, we conclude that BIA-BF% is not accurate in either sex when body fat percentage levels are low or high. Further studies are necessary to confirm our findings in different ethnic groups.