ArticleNutrition research and practice2018
Validation of Dietary Reference Intakes for predicting energy requirements in elementary school-age children.
Article in Nutrition research and practice, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Total energy expenditure measured by doubly labeled water method in children and adolescents: a systematic review.Clinical and experimental pediatrics · 2023Article
- A narrative review on the application of doubly labeled water method for estimating energy requirement for Koreans.Nutrition research and practice · 2022Review
- RMR-RelatedJournal of personalized medicine · 2021Article
- Using physical activity levels to estimate energy requirements of female athletes.Journal of exercise nutrition & biochemistry · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
12 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesDietary Reference Intakes (DRI) for energy are derived from total energy expenditure (TEE) measured using the doubly labelled water (DLW) method. The objective of this study was to assess the validity of DRI for predicting the energy requirements of elementary school-age children. SUBJECTS/
methodsThe present study involved 25 elementary school-age children aged between 9 and 11 years. TEE was assessed by the DLW method, and the results were compared with the TEE predicted by the DRI equations in order to evaluate accuracy.
resultsThe subjects' TEE measured by the DLW method was 1,925.2 ± 380.9 kcal/day in boys and 1,930.0 ± 279.4 kcal/day in girls, whereas resting energy expenditure was 1,220.2 ± 176.9 kcal/day in boys and 1,245.9 ± 171.3 kcal/day for girls. The physical activity level was 1.58 ± 0.20 in boys and 1.55 ± 0.13 in girls. The mean bias between the predicted and measured TEE was 12.6% in boys and -1.6% in girls, and the percentage of accurate predictions was 28.6% and 63.6%, respectively. In boys, the equation resulted in underprediction of TEE among the subjects having low TEE values, whereas there was overprediction among subjects having high TEE values as shown by the Bland-Altman plot. On the contrary, this proportional bias was not observed in girls.
conclusionsThe findings of this study suggest that the DRI equation for energy could result in the overestimation of energy requirements in elementary school-age boys. In the case of girls, the equations could be accurate at the group level. However, the DRI appears to be invalid for individual girls, as more than one third of girls had their TEE inaccurately predicted. We recommend more studies for confirmation of these results.
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.