ArticleThe British journal of nutrition2020
The use of a portable metabolic monitoring device for measuring RMR in healthy adults.
Article in The British journal of nutrition, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Impact of Starting Positions and Breathing Rhythms on Cardiopulmonary Stress and Post-Exercise Oxygen Consumption after High-Intensity Metabolic Training: A Randomized Crossover Prospective Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Nutrition Intervention Informed by Indirect Calorimetry Compared to Predictive Equations to Achieve Weight Goals in Geriatric Rehabilitation Inpatients: The NEED Study.The journal of nutrition, health & aging · 2023Article
- Current Predictive Resting Metabolic Rate Equations Are Not Sufficient to Determine Proper Resting Energy Expenditure in Olympic Young Adult National Team Athletes.Frontiers in 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective measurement of RMR may be important for optimal nutritional care but is hindered by the price and practicality of the metabolic monitoring device. This study compared two metabolic monitoring devices for measuring RMR and VO2 and compared the measured RMR with the predicted RMR calculated from equations. RMR was measured using QUARK RMR (reference device) and Fitmate GS (COSMED) in a random order for 30 min, each on fasted participants. In total, sixty-eight adults participated (median age 22 years, interquartile range 21-32). Pearson correlation showed that RMR (r 0·86) and VO2 (r 0·86) were highly correlated between the two devices (P < 0·05). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) showed good relative agreements regarding RMR (ICC = 0·84) and VO2 (ICC = 0·84) (P < 0·05). RMR measured by QUARK RMR was significantly higher (649 (sd 753) kJ/d) than Fitmate GS. Equations significantly overpredicted RMR. Accurate RMR (i.e. within ±10 % of the RMR measured by QUARK RMR) was found among 38 % of the participants for Fitmate GS and among 46-68 % depending on the equations. Bland-Altman analysis showed a low absolute agreement with QUARK RMR at an individual level for both Fitmate GS (limits of agreement (LOA): -828 to +2125 kJ/d) and equations (LOA ranged from -1979 to +1879 kJ/d). In conclusion, both Fitmate GS and predictive equations had low absolute agreements with QUARK RMR at an individual level. Therefore, these limitations should be considered when determining RMR using Fitmate GS or equations.
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.