ArticleEuropean journal of clinical nutrition2023
Predicting resting energy expenditure: a critical appraisal.
Article in European journal of clinical nutrition, 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.
- Metabolic adaptation following gastric bypass surgery: results from a 2-year observational study.International journal of obesity (2005) · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe most commonly used prediction models for resting energy expenditure (REE) are Harris-Benedict (1919), Schofield (1985), Owen (1986), and Mifflin-St Jeor (1990), based on height, weight, age and gender, and Cunningham (1991), based on body composition.
methodsHere, the five models are compared with reference data, consisting of individual REE measurements (n = 353) from 14 studies, covering a large range of participant characteristics.
resultsFor white adults, prediction of REE with the Harris-Benedict model approached measured REE most closely, with estimates within 10% for more than 70% of the reference population. DISCUSSION: Sources of differences between measured and predicted REE include measurement validity and measurement conditions. Importantly, a 12- to 14-h overnight fast may not be sufficient to reach post-absorptive conditions and may explain differences between predicted REE and measured REE. In both cases complete fasting REE may not have been achieved, especially in participants with high energy intake.
conclusionIn white adults, measured resting energy expenditure was closest to predicted values with the classic Harris-Benedict model. Suggestions for improving resting energy expenditure measurements, as well as prediction models, include the definition of post-absorptive conditions, representing complete fasting conditions with respiratory exchange ratio as indicator.
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.