Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Information:

  • Access

Actions:

      • Send article to Kindle

        To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

        Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

        Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

        Body composition in older community-dwelling adults with hip-fracture: portable field methods validated by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry – CORRIGENDUM
        Available formats
        ×

        Send article to Dropbox

        To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

        Body composition in older community-dwelling adults with hip-fracture: portable field methods validated by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry – CORRIGENDUM
        Available formats
        ×

        Send article to Google Drive

        To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

        Body composition in older community-dwelling adults with hip-fracture: portable field methods validated by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry – CORRIGENDUM
        Available formats
        ×
Export citation

An error was made in calculating the Tengvall et al. equation in this paper( 1 ). Tables 1 and 2 should read as follows:

Table 1 Anthropometric characteristics at baseline, 6 and 12 months after hip fracture in male and female participants (Mean values and standard deviations)

SMM, skeletal muscle mass; DXA, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry; FFM, fat free mass; CAMA, corrected arm muscle area; BIS, bioelectrical impedance spectroscopy.

* Significant differences in the mean values for SMM and FFM between field methods, predictive equations and DXA assessed by paired t test (P< 0·05).

Tengvall et al. equation 1 includes body weight as a predictor of SMM in the regression model.

Tengvall et al. equation 2 excludes body weight as a predictor of SMM in the regression model.

Table 2 Correlations and 95 % limits of agreement (LOA) between dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), a reference technique, and field methods for the assessment of fat-free mass (FFM) and skeletal muscle mass (SMM) at baseline, 6 and 12 months post hip fracture

BIS, bioelectrical impedance spectroscopy; CAMA, corrected arm muscle area.

* Significant proportional bias (P< 0·05).

Association between body composition field methods, predictive equations and DXA assessed by Spearman correlation analyses (P< 0·05).

Mean bias between body composition field methods, predictive equations and DXA assessed by paired t test.

§ 95 % LOA indicates the mean difference between body composition field methods, predictive equations and DXA ± 1·96.

Proportional bias in the mean difference between body composition field methods, predictive equations and DXA assessed by linear regression analyses.

Study sample size at each assessment time point: baseline, n 79; 6 months, n 75; 12 months, n 63.

†† Tengvall et al. equation 1 includes body weight as a predictor of SMM in the regression model.

‡‡ Tengvall et al. equation 2 excludes body weight as a predictor of SMM in the regression model.

Under Measures of Agreement in Results:

‘Estimates of SMM from both predictive equations also overestimated SMM from DXA at each assessment time point (equation 1: baseline, 15·1 kg; 6M, 17·1 kg; 12M, 17·5 kg; equation 2: baseline, 12·6 kg; 6M, 14·4 kg; 12M, 14·8 kg) (Table 2). Significant changes were observed in the mean bias across each assessment time point for both predictive equations (equation 1: P= 0·002; equation 2: P= 0·001). Significant proportional bias was observed at baseline between SMMDEXA and predictive equation 1 (β = 0·311; P= 0·05) and at 6M between SMMDEXA and prediction equation 2 (β = 0·266; P= 0·05)’.

Should read

‘Estimates of SMM from both predictive equations underestimated SMM derived from DXA at each assessment time point (equation 1: baseline, − 4·6 kg (95 % LOA: − 10·5, 1·3); 6M, − 2·9 kg (95 % LOA: − 10·5, 4·7); 12M, − 2·5 kg (95 % LOA: − 7·6, 2·6); equation 2: baseline, − 5·3 kg (95 % LOA: − 12·0, 1·4); 6M, − 3·3 kg (95 % LOA: − 11·1, 4·5); 12M, − 3·2 kg (95 % LOA: − 9·9, 3·5)) (Table 2). No significant changes were observed in the mean bias between SMMDEXA and both predictive equations across each assessment time point (equation 1: P= 0·202; equation 2: P= 0·265). Significant proportional bias however was observed at baseline, 6M and 12M between SMMDEXA and both predictive equations (equation 1: baseline, β = − 0·404; P< 0·001; 6M, β = − 0·202; P= 0·02; 12M, β = − 0·316; P= 0·004; equation 2: baseline, β = − 0·449; P< 0·001; 6M, β = − 0·188; P= 0·02; 12M, − 0·334; P= 0·003) (Table 2)’.

Under Discussion

‘Previously established predictive equations overestimated SMM in our sample. The mean bias increased from baseline at 6 and 12 months for both predictive equations and the 95 % LOA were wide’.

Should read

‘Previously established predictive equations underestimated SMM at each assessment time point in this sample of hip fracture patients. In comparison with the two portable methods of body composition assessment used in the present study, the mean bias was greater with the LOA being equally as unacceptable.’

Reference

1 Villani, AM, Miller, M, Cameron, ID, et al. (2013) Body composition in older community-dwelling adults with hip-fracture: portable field methods validated by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Br J Nutr 109, 12191229, Published by Cambridge University Press, 24 August 2012, doi:10.1017/S0007114512003170