Skip to main content

Table 4 Results for regression and Bland Altman analysis for comparison of the criterion method and the fat mass estimation equations at birth and 3 months

From: Validity of anthropometric equations to estimate infant fat mass at birth and in early infancy

Comparison

Regression analysis

Bland and Altman

Slope

R2

p-value

SEE

Mean bias ± SD

95% limits of agreement

Pearson Correlation (r)

p-value*

Birth (n = 95)

 Deierlein vs Criterion

−0.87

0.61

<0.0001

0.108

0.114 ± 0.109

−0.010 - 0.328

−0.17

0.099

 Catalano vs Criterion

0.92

0.55

<0.0001

0.116

−0.012 ± 0.116

−0.240 - 0.215

−0.31

0.002

 Lingwood vs Criterion

0.93

0.55

<0.0001

0.116

−0.045 ± 0.116

−0.272 - 0.183

−0.33

0.001

 Aris vs Criterion

0.87

0.62

<0.0001

0.106

−0.034 ± 0.107

−0.245 - 0.176

−0.15

0.140

3 months (n = 63)

 Deierlein vs Criterion

0.29

0.42

<0.0001

0.333

3.325 ± 0.784

1.789 - 4.862

0.77

<0.0001

 Catalano vs Criterion

1.02

0.50

<0.0001

0.308

−0.271 ± 0.306

−0.871 - 0.328

−0.47

<0.0001

 Lingwood vs Criterion

1.24

0.55

<0.0001

0.294

−0.286 ± 0.298

−0.871 - 0.299

−0.63

<0.0001

 Aris vs Criterion

1.15

0.52

<0.0001

0.303

−0.230 ± 0.303

−0.824 - 0.363

−0.57

<0.0001

  1. * Significance for the correlation of the strength for the relationship between the mean of the criterion and each equation correlated to the difference between the equation estimated infant fat mass and the criterion measured fat mass. A non-significant correlation suggests no bias in the technique across the range of fatness
Back to article page

BMC Pediatrics

ISSN: 1471-2431

Contact us