ArticlePloS one2023
Effect of gas exchange data selection methods on resting metabolic rate estimation in young athletes.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Resting metabolic rate fluctuations across the menstrual cycle: a systematic review.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This cross-sectional study analysed the effect of the gas exchange data selection methods on the resting metabolic rate (RMR) estimation and proposed a protocol shortening providing a suitable RMR estimation for young athletes. Sixty-six healthy young Brazilian athletes performed a 30-minute RMR assessment. Different methods of gas exchange data selection were applied: short and long-time intervals, steady-state (SSt), and filtering. A mixed one-way ANOVA was used to analyse the mean differences in gas exchange, RMR, respiratory exchange ratio (RER), and coefficients of variation across all methods. Additionally, paired Student's t-test were used to compare the first and best SSt RMR values for each SSt method (3, 4, and 5-min). The 5-min SSt method provided the lowest RMR estimate (1454 kcal.day-1). There was a statistical difference between methods (F = 2.607, p = 0.04), but they presented a clinically irrelevant absolute difference (~36 kcal.day-1). There were no differences in RER among methods. In addition, using the SSt method, 12 minutes of assessment were enough to obtain a valid estimation of RMR. The 5-min SSt method should be employed for assessing the RMR among young athletes, considering the possibility of obtaining a shortened assessment (~12 min) with an acceptable and low coefficient of variation.
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.