ArticleScientific reports2023
Development and validation of new predictive equations for resting energy expenditure in physically active boys.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Measurement or estimation of resting energy expenditure (REE) should be the first step in determining energy demand in physically active boys. The purpose of this study was to develop and validate new equations for resting energy expenditure in male children and adolescents practicing soccer. The cross-sectional studywas carried out among 184 boys in the derivation group and 148 boys in the validation group (mean age 13.20 ± 2.16 years and 13.24 ± 1.75 years, respectively). The calorimeter and device for assessing body composition by bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) were used. Model of multiple regression showed that REE can be predicted in this population with Eq. (1) (with height and weight data) or Eq. (2) (with age, height, and fat free mass data). Predictive Eq. (1) had an average error of 51 ± 199 kcal and predictive Eq. (2) - 39 ± 193 kcal. Cohen's d coefficient was 0.2, which confirms the small difference. The bias was 4.7% and 3.9%, respectively. The accuracy was 61.2% in the population for predictive Eq. (1) and 66.2% for predictive Eq. (2). Therefore, the new equations developed and validated in this study are recommended for the estimation of REE in physically active boys, when the use of IC is not feasible or available.
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.