Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32657792›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in clinical nutrition and metabolic care2020

Assessment of energy expenditure: are calories measured differently for different diets?

Guillermo Sanchez-Delgado, Eric Ravussin

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in clinical nutrition and metabolic care, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Guillermo Sanchez-DelgadoPennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA.
Eric Ravussin
Pennington Biomedical Research Center · US

Funding

Research BaseP30DK072476 · NIDDK · LSU PENNINGTON BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH CTR · PI Sujoy Ghosh · 2005 to 2026
$26.5M
NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK072476
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThe prevalence and burden of obesity has reached alarming levels. The assessment of human energy expenditure enables the identification of obesity-prone and obesity-resistant individuals and helps to explain the short and long-term success of weight loss treatments. In this review, we describe the state-of-the-art methods used in the assessment of human energy expenditure and the impact of dietary intake on the interpretation of the data. RECENT

findingsThe reference techniques to assess energy expenditure in humans have not significantly changed during the last century. Today, indirect calorimetry, either using a metabolic chamber or a metabolic cart, is the favored method to assess human energy expenditure and is the only method enabling the assessment of macronutrient oxidation. The doubly labeled water method however provides accurate assessment of human energy expenditure under free living conditions. SUMMARY: Although energy expenditure and macronutrient oxidation can be assessed by simple calculations from oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide production, these calculations can provide erroneous results or require corrections and/or more complex interpretation when several biochemical pathways are simultaneously engaged. Such physiological mechanisms are often elicited by dietary interventions including, among other, gluconeogenesis, lipogenesis, ketogenesis, alcohol oxidation and under or overfeeding.

Indexed as

Energy MetabolismNutrition AssessmentCalorimetry, IndirectDietEnergy IntakeHumansObesity

Identifiers

PMID32657792
PMCPMC9583681
OpenAlexW3043071409

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.