ArticleInternational archives of occupational and environmental health1990
A comparative study on different methods for the determination of energy expenditure.
Article in International archives of occupational and environmental health, 1990. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In order to determine energy expenditure, the Douglas Bag technique (DB) and Kofranyi-Michaelis respirometers (KM) have been widely used under field conditions for several decades. Some years ago the Oxylog (OX) method was developed, measuring simultaneously the difference of partial oxygen pressure in inspired and expired air (PO2 diff.) by two polarographic oxygen sensors. In order to compare these three methods laboratory experiments (3 test subjects, 5 different bicycle ergometer work loads, 180 measurements per apparatus) were performed. Oxygen uptake (VO2) varied between about 0.9 to 3.0 l/min. The VO2 data obtained by the DB method, which were used as a reference, and those obtained by the KM method agreed fairly well. The recorded data of OX underestimated VO2 up to 21%, with the deviation increasing with work intensity. A sufficient accuracy of recorded VO2 was observed only up to moderate work intensity. OX data calculated from ventilation volume of inspired air per minute (VI) and PO2 diff., measured by OX, were always about 19% higher than those recorded by OX. This means that the calculated VO2 values of the OX corresponded fairly well with DB values at heavy work loads. The reason for the differences between recorded and calculated OX data is still unknown. Further research is urgently needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
2295517What 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.