ArticleNutrition journal2023
Comparison of energy expenditure measurements by a new basic respiratory room vs. classical ventilated hood.
Article in Nutrition journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNutritional support is often based on predicted resting energy expenditure (REE). In patients, predictions seem invalid. Indirect calorimetry is the gold standard for measuring EE. For assessments over longer periods (up to days), room calorimeters are used. Their design makes their use cumbersome, and warrants improvements to increase utility. Current study aims to compare data on momentary EE, obtained by a basic respiration room vs. classical ventilated hood. The objective is to compare results of the basic room and to determine its
methodsTwo protocols (P1; P2)(n = 62; 25 men/37 women) were applied. When measured by hood, participants in both protocols were in complete rest (supine position). When assessed by room, participants in P1 were instructed to stay half-seated while performing light desk work; in P2 participants were in complete rest mimicking hood conditions. The Omnical calorimeter operated both modalities. Following data were collected/calculated: Oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text] O
resultsNo significant differences were found for 24h_EE and [Formula: see text] O DISCUSSION/
conclusionThe room is valid for assessing momentary EE. Minute changes in activity lead to a non-significant increase in EE and significant increase in RER. The significant difference in [Formula: see text] CO
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.