Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36235863›Full record

ArticleNutrients2022

External Validation with Accuracy Confounders of VCO

Panagiotis Briassoulis, Stavroula Ilia, Efrossini Briassouli, George Briassoulis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nutrients, 2022. 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Observational
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Observational
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

4 authors.

Panagiotis BriassoulisPediatric Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Crete, 71110 Heraklion, Greece.
Stavroula IliaPediatric Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Crete, 71110 Heraklion, Greece.ORCID 0000-0002-0936-368X
Efrossini BriassouliInfectious Diseases Department "MAKKA", First Department of Paediatrics, "Aghia Sophia" Children's Hospital, Athens Medical School, 11527 Athens, Greece.
George BriassoulisPediatric Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Crete, 71110 Heraklion, Greece.ORCID 0000-0003-0928-6183

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Optimal energy provision, guided by measured resting energy expenditure (REE) and determined by indirect calorimetry (IC), is fundamental in Intensive Care Units (ICU). Because IC availability is limited, methods to predict REE based on carbon dioxide production (VCO2) measurements (REEVCO2) alone have been proposed as a surrogate for REE measured by IC (REEIC). The study aimed at externally and internally validating the accuracy of the REEVCO2 as an alternative to REEIC in mechanically ventilated children. A ventilator’s integrated gas exchange module (E-COVX) was used to prospectively measure REEIC and predict REEVCO2 on 107 mechanically ventilated children during the first 24 h of admission. The accuracy of the REEVCO2 compared to REEIC was assessed through the calculation of bias and precision, paired median differences, linear regression, and ROC analysis. Accuracy within ±10% of the REEIC was deemed acceptable for the REEVCO2 equation. The calculated REEVCO2 based on respiratory quotient (RQ) 0.89 resulted in a mean bias of −72.7 kcal/day (95% limits of agreement −321.7 to 176.3 kcal/day) and a high coefficient of variation (174.7%), while 51.4% of the calculations fell outside the ±10% accuracy rate. REEVCO2 derived from RQ 0.80 or 0.85 did not improve accuracy. Only measured RQ (Beta 0.73, p < 0.001) and no-recorded neuromuscular blocking agents (Beta −0.13, p = 0.044) were independently associated with the REEVCO2−REEIC difference. Among the recorded anthropometric, metabolic, nutrition, or clinical variables, only measured RQ was a strong predictor of REEVCO2 inaccuracy (p < 0.001). Cutoffs of RQ = 0.80 predicted 89% of underestimated REEIC (sensitivity 0.99; specificity 0.89) and RQ = 0.82 predicted 56% of overestimated REEIC (sensitivity of 0.99; specificity 0.56). REEVCO2 cannot be recommended as an alternative to REEIC in mechanically ventilated children, regardless of the metabolic, anthropometric, or clinical status at the time of the evaluation.

Indexed as

Carbon DioxideRespiration, ArtificialBasal MetabolismCalorimetry, IndirectChildEnergy MetabolismHumansReproducibility of ResultsRestCarbon Dioxideaccuracychildrencritical careindirect calorimetryprediction equationsresting energy expenditure

Identifiers

PMID36235863
PMCPMC9571636

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.