Observational studySpinal cord2019
Comparison of estimated energy requirements using predictive equations with total energy expenditure measured by the doubly labelled water method in acute spinal cord injury.
Observational study in Spinal cord, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Implementing body composition assessment into clinical practice in patients with acute spinal cord injury- a pilot feasibility study.Spinal cord · 2026Article
- Resting energy expenditure during spinal cord injury rehabilitation and utility of fat-free mass-based energy prediction equations: a pilot study.Spinal cord series and cases · 2024Observational
- Preliminary field validity of ActiGraph-based energy expenditure estimation in wheelchair users with spinal cord injury.Spinal cord · 2024Article
- The comparison of total energy and protein intake relative to estimated requirements in chronic spinal cord injury.The British journal of nutrition · 2024Article
- A longitudinal analysis of resting energy expenditure and body composition in people with spinal cord injury undergoing surgical repair of pressure injuries: a pilot study.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2023Article
- Article
- Energy expenditure and nutrient intake after spinal cord injury: a comprehensive review and practical recommendations.The British journal of nutrition · 2022Review
- Modeling Energy Expenditure Estimation in Occupational Context by Actigraphy: A Multi Regression Mixed-Effects Model.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Observational
- Clinical study of abnormal glucose metabolism and insulin resistance in patients with liver cirrhosis.American journal of translational research · 2021Article
- Stable isotopes: their use and safety in human nutrition studies.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designProspective, observational
objectivesTo evaluate agreement between a reference method (doubly labelled water, DLW) of total energy expenditure (TEE) and published equations for estimating energy requirements in acute spinal cord injury (SCI).
settingVictoria, Australia
methodsTwenty participants (18 male) within 8 weeks of traumatic SCI completed DLW, anthropometric and dietary intake assessments. Energy requirements were predicted using Harris-Benedict, Schofield, Henry, Nelson, Buchholz and Chun equations, multiplied by a combined activity and stress factor of 1.3, and the ratio method (kJ/kg body weight). Fat-free mass (FFM) and fat mass (FM) were calculated from TBW-derived DLW and from bioelectrical impedance spectroscopy (BIS).
resultsMedian time since injury was 41 days. Median TEE was 9.1 MJ. Fair agreement was found between TEE and predicted energy requirements for the Chun (r
conclusionThe population-specific Buchholz equation that incorporates FFM, predicted from either BIS or DLW, demonstrated the best agreement in patients with acute SCI. SPONSORSHIP: The study was funded by grants from the Institute for Safety, Compensation and Recovery Research (ISCRR Project # NGE-E-13-078) and Austin Medical Research Foundation. M Panisset was supported by an Australian Postgraduate Award.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30728440What 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.