Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24400152›Full record

ArticlePhysiological reports2013

Validation of SenseWear Armband and ActiHeart monitors for assessments of daily energy expenditure in free-living women with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Nighat Farooqi, Frode Slinde, Lena Håglin, Thomas Sandström

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Physiological reports, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Nighat FarooqiDepartment of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Respiratory Medicine and Allergy, Umeå University Umeå, Sweden.
Frode SlindeDepartment of Internal Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg Gothenburg, Sweden.
Lena HåglinDepartment of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Family Medicine, Umeå University Umeå, Sweden.
Thomas SandströmDepartment of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Respiratory Medicine and Allergy, Umeå University Umeå, Sweden.
Umeå University · SEUniversity of Gothenburg · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To provide individually adapted nutritional support to patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), objective and reliable methods must be used to assess patient energy requirements. The aim of this study was to validate the use of SenseWear Armband (SWA) and ActiHeart (AH) monitors for assessing total daily energy expenditure (TEE) and activity energy expenditure (AEE) and compare these techniques with the doubly labeled water (DLW) method in free-living women with COPD. TEE and AEE were measured in 19 women with COPD for 14 days using SWAs with software version 5.1 (TEESWA5, AEESWA5) or 6.1 (TEESWA6, AEESWA6) and AH monitors (TEEAH, AEEAH), using DLW (TEEDLW) as the criterion method. The three methods were compared using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman analyses. The mean TEE did not significantly differ between the DLW and SWA5.1 methods (-21 ± 726 kJ/day; P = 0.9), but it did significantly differ between the DLW and SWA6.1 (709 ± 667 kJ/day) (P < 0.001) and the DLW and AH methods (709 ± 786 kJ/day) (P < 0.001). Strong agreement was observed between the DLW and TEESWA5 methods (ICC = 0.76; 95% CI 0.47-0.90), with moderate agreements between the DLW and TEESWA6 (ICC = 0.66; 95% CI 0.02-0.88) and the DLW and TEEAH methods (ICC = 0.61; 95% CI 0.05-0.85). Compared with the DLW method, the SWA5.1 underestimated AEE by 12% (P = 0.03), whereas the SWA6.1 and AH monitors underestimated AEE by 35% (P < 0.001). Bland-Altman plots revealed no systematic bias for TEE or AEE. The SWA5.1 can reliably assess TEE in women with COPD. However, the SWA6.1 and AH monitors underestimate TEE. The SWA and AH monitors underestimate AEE.

Indexed as

Energy expenditurevalidity of ActiHeartvalidity of SenseWear Armbandwomen with COPD

Identifiers

PMID24400152
PMCPMC3871465
OpenAlexW2114187962

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.