ArticleEuropean journal of clinical nutrition2016
Prediction of basal metabolic rate in patients with Prader-Willi syndrome.
Article in European journal of clinical nutrition, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Methods of Determining Energy Expenditure in Individuals with Prader-Willi Syndrome: A Systematic Literature Review.Nutrients · 2024Pooled it
- Resting Energy Expenditure in Adults With Williams Syndrome: Comparative Accuracy of Predictive Equations.Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR · 2026Article
- Prader-Willi Syndrome in Adults: An Update On Nutritional Treatment and Pharmacological Approach.Current obesity reports · 2022Review
- Body composition and obstructive sleep apnoea assessment in adult patients with Prader-Willi syndrome: a case control study.Journal of endocrinological investigation · 2022Article
- Effects of Childhood Multidisciplinary Care and Growth Hormone Treatment on Health Problems in Adults with Prader-Willi Syndrome.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Phase Angle: Could Be an Easy Tool to Detect Low-Grade Systemic Inflammation in Adults Affected by Prader-Willi Syndrome?Nutrients · 2020Article
- Article
- The associations between diet and physical activity with body composition and walking a timed distance in adults with Prader-Willi syndrome.Food & nutrition research · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesThe objective of this study was to develop new equations for predicting basal metabolic rate (BMR) in Prader-Willi syndrome (PWS) subjects and to compare their accuracy with commonly used equations developed by Lazzer (2007), Livingston (2005), Huang (2004), Nelson (1992), Mifflin (1990), Owen (1987), WHO (1985), Bernstein (1983) and Harris-Benedict (1919), using the Bland-Altman method. SUBJECTS/
methodsBMR was measured by indirect calorimetry and fat-free mass (FFM) and fat mass (FM) by a tetrapolar impedancemeter in 80 Caucasian PWS patients (mean body mass index: 39.1 kg/m(2); 17-50 years). Equations were derived by stepwise multiple regression analysis using a calibration group (n:50) and tested against the validation group (n:30).
resultsTwo new equations, based on anthropometric (BMR=body mass × 0.052+sex × 0.778-age × 0.033+2.839 (R(2)adj=0.61, s.e.=0.89 MJ per day)) or body composition (BMR=FFMx0.074+FMx0.042+sexx0.636-agex0.037+2.515 (R(2)adj=0.69, s.e.=0.82 MJ per day)), were generated. Predicted BMR (PBMR) was not significantly different from the measured BMR (<3.3%), and was accurate in 59% and 62% of patients, respectively. Nevertheless, significant magnitude bias was found for both equations (P<0.001, R(2)=0.36). The Owen (1987), Mifflin (1990), Huang (2004) and Lazzer (2007) equations showed mean differences <5% and PBMR was accurate in ~50% of patients. The Livingston (2005), WHO (1985) and Harris-Benedict (1919) equations showed a PBMR overestimation >7% and were accurate in <50% of patients. The Nelson (1992) and Bernstein (1983) equations showed a greater PBMR underestimation in >60% of subjects.
conclusionsThe new prediction equations showed significantly higher accuracy compared with equations tested, with exception of Lazzer (2007) and Livingston (2005) equations, and result in lower mean differences and lower limits of agreement compared with the equations tested.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26395435What 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.