ArticleEuropean journal of clinical nutrition2006
Comparison of accuracy and precision of heart rate calibration methods to estimate total carbon dioxide production during 13C-breath tests.
Article in European journal of clinical nutrition, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Metabolic response to a ketogenic breakfast in the healthy elderly.The journal of nutrition, health & aging · 2009Trial
- Stunted African toddlers digest and obtain energy from energy-dense thick sorghum porridge.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2025Article
- Effect of Casilan(®) on (13)C-caffeine metabolism in overnight-fasted healthy Nigerian children.Journal of pharmacology & pharmacotherapeutics · 2013Article
- Improving the specificity of the [13C]mixed triacylglycerol breath test by estimating carbon dioxide production from heart rate.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2006Article
- Gastrointestinal handling of glycosyl [13C]ureides.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2003Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background13C-breath tests are noninvasive tools to measure gastrointestinal function and nutritional interventions. Calculation of percentage dose recovered of 13C in exhaled breath requires knowledge of CO2 production rate (VC02). A resting value is usually assumed, but this can underestimate VC02 because subjects are unlikely to remain at rest during tests that last for many hours. There is a need for a method to estimate nonresting VC02 during 13C-breath tests.
objectiveTo calibrate a heart rate monitor to continually estimate VC02 during 13C-breath tests.
designProof of concept study. SUBJECTS: Eight healthy adults, 10 healthy children and six children with cystic fibrosis.
methodsHeart rate and VC02 were measured simultaneously at resting and nonresting levels. A new calibration method (smoothing heart rate and fitting a sigmoid function) was compared with published methods. A [ 3C]acetate breath test was used to demonstrate the range of physical activity during breath tests.
resultsThe new calibration method was more accurate than existing methods (mean bias -0.0002%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.0007, 0.0003% of the mean measured VC02). Smoothing heart rate gave a more precise estimate of VC02 and a more accurate estimate of resting energy expenditure (mean bias -0.09, 95% Cl -0.22, 0.05 mmol CO2 min-' m-2 body surface area) than using raw data (mean bias -0.21, 95% Cl -0.38, -0.04 mmol CO2 min' m-2 body surface area). Physical activity level ranged from 1.0 to 2.5 in children, and 1.0 to 1.5 in adults.
conclusionUse of smoothed HR with a sigmoid function provides an accurate method of estimating nonresting VC02 during 13C-breath tests.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.