ArticleScientific reports2020
An appraisal of whole-room indirect calorimeters and a metabolic cart for measuring resting and active metabolic rates.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- A feasibility double-blind trial of levothyroxine vs. levothyroxine-liothyronine in postsurgical hypothyroidism.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Trial
- Acute Effects of Liothyronine Administration on Cardiovascular System and Energy Metabolism in Healthy Volunteers.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2022Trial
- Measuring Postprandial Metabolic Flexibility to Assess Metabolic Health and Disease.The Journal of nutrition · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Whole-room indirect calorimeters (WRICs) have traditionally been used for real-time resting metabolic rate (RMR) measurements, while metabolic rate (MR) during short-interval exercises has commonly been measured by metabolic carts (MCs). This study aims to investigate the feasibility of incorporating short-interval exercises into WRIC study protocols by comparing the performance of WRICs and an MC. We assessed the 40-min RMR of 15 subjects with 2-day repeats and the 10-15 min activity MR (AMR) of 14 subjects at three intensities, using a large WRIC, a small WRIC, and an MC. We evaluated the biases between the instruments and quantified sources of variation using variance component analysis. All three instruments showed good agreement for both RMR (maximum bias = 0.07 kcal/min) and AMR assessment (maximum bias = 0.53 kcal/min). Moreover, the majority of the variability was between-subject and between-intensity variation, whereas the types of instrument contributed only a small amount to total variation in RMR (2%) and AMR (0.2%) data. In Conclusion, the good reproducibility among the instruments indicates that they may be used interchangeably in well-designed studies. Overall, WRICs can serve as an accurate and versatile means of assessing MR, capable of integrating RMR and short-interval AMR assessments into a single protocol.
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.