ReviewEuropean journal of applied physiology2018
Foundational insights into the estimation of whole-body metabolic rate.
Review in European journal of applied physiology, 2018. 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.
- A century of exercise physiology: concepts that ignited the study of human thermoregulation. Part 4: evolution, thermal adaptation and unsupported theories of thermoregulation.European journal of applied physiology · 2024Review
- A century of exercise physiology: concepts that ignited the study of human thermoregulation. Part 3: Heat and cold tolerance during exercise.European journal of applied physiology · 2024Review
- A century of exercise physiology: concepts that ignited the study of human thermoregulation. Part 2: physiological measurements.European journal of applied physiology · 2023Review
- In Memory of Dr. Roy J. Shephard.European journal of applied physiology · 2023Article
- The scaling of human basal and resting metabolic rates.European journal of applied physiology · 2021Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since 2013, this journal has promoted the publication of thematic reviews (Taylor in Eur J Appl Physiol 113:1634, 2013), where leading groups were invited to review the critical literature within each of several sub-topics. The current theme is historically based, and is focussed on estimating the metabolic rate in humans. This review charts the development of our understanding of those methods, from the discovery of oxygen and carbon dioxide, to the introduction of highly sophisticated modern apparatus to examine the composition of expired gas and determine respiratory minute volume. An historical timeline links the six thematic vignettes on this theme. Modern advances have greatly enhanced data collection without significant decrements in measurement accuracy. At the same time, however, conceptual errors, particularly steady-state requirements, are too often ignored. Indeed, it is recognised that we often neglect the past, leading to errors in research design, experimental observations and data interpretation, and this appears to be increasingly prevalent within the open-access literature. Accordingly, the Editorial Board, in recognition of a widening gap between our experimental foundations and contemporary research, embarked on developing a number of thematic review series, of which this series is the first. The intent of each accompanying overview is to introduce and illuminate seminal investigations that led to significant scientific or intellectual breakthroughs, and to thereby whet the appetite of readers to delve more deeply into the historical literature; for it is only when the foundations are understood that we can best understand where we are now, and in which directions we should head.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29484484What 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.