ArticleJPEN. Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition2022
Estimated vs measured energy expenditure in ventilated surgical-trauma critically ill patients.
Article in JPEN. Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition, 2022. 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Longitudinal analysis of caloric requirements in critically ill trauma patients: a retrospective cohort study.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2024Article
- Determining the appropriate resting energy expenditure requirement for severe trauma patients using indirect calorimetry in Korea: a retrospective observational study.Journal of trauma and injury · 2023Article
- The Role of Indirect Calorimetry in Care of the Surgical Patient.Current surgery reports · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe American and European guidelines recommend measuring resting energy expenditure (REE) using indirect calorimetry (IC). Predictive equations (PEs) are used to estimate REE, but there is limited evidence for their use in critically ill patients. The aim of this study is to evaluate the degree of agreement and accuracy between IC-measured REE (REE-IC) and 10 different PEs in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients with surgical trauma who met their estimated energy requirement.
methodsREE-IC was retrospectively compared with REE-PE by 10 PEs. The degree of agreement between REE-PE and REE-IC was analyzed by the Bland-Altman test (BAt) and the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC). The accuracy was calculated by the percentage of patients whose REE-PE values differ by up to ±10% in relation to REE-IC. All analyses were stratified by gender and body mass index (BMI; <25 vs ≥25).
resultsWe analyzed 104 patients and the closest estimate to REE-IC was the modified Harris-Benedict equation (mHB) by the BAt with a mean difference of 49.2 overall (61.6 for males, 28.5 for females, 67.5 for BMI <25, and 42.5 for BMI ≥25). The overall CCC between the REE-IC and mHB was 0.652 (0.560 for males, 0.496 for females, 0.570 for BMI <25, and 0.598 for BMI ≥25). The mHB equation was the most accurate with an overall accuracy of 44.2%.
conclusionThe effectiveness of PEs for estimating the REE of mechanically ventilated surgical-trauma critically ill patients is limited. [Correction added on 17 February 2022, after first online publication: The word "with" was deleted before "is limited" in the preceding sentence.] Nonetheless, of the 10 equations examined, the closest to REE-IC was the mHB equation.
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.