ReviewSports (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Using Respiratory Gas Analyzers to Determine Resting Metabolic Rate in Adults: A Systematic Review of Validity Studies.
Review in Sports (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. 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.
- Day-to-day variability in resting metabolic rate in strength athletes.Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition · 2026Article
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
Abstract
backgroundCorrect assessment of resting metabolic rate (RMR) is fundamental for estimating total energy expenditure in both clinical nutrition and sports sciences research. Various methods have been proposed for RMR determination, including predictive equations, isotopic dilution techniques, and indirect calorimetry. Over the past two decades, portable gas analyzers have emerged as promising alternatives, offering more accessible and cost-effective solutions for metabolic assessment. However, evidence regarding their validity remains inconsistent, particularly across diverse populations and varying metabolic assessment protocols.
methodsThis systematic review was conducted in May 2025 using the PubMed, Web of Science, and EBSCO databases, following the PRISMA-DTA guidelines, and included observational studies with the objective of examining the available evidence regarding the validity of portable gas analyzers to determine RMR in humans. The methodological quality of each study was assessed using the NIH Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies.
resultsFrom an initial pool of 230 studies, 16 met the eligibility criteria. The findings revealed notable variability in measurement validity among devices, mainly influenced by device model, population characteristics, and methodological factors. While portable analyzers such as FitMate and Q-NRG exhibited high validity, MedGem exhibited systematic biases, particularly in individuals with higher adiposity, leading to RMR overestimations.
conclusionsThe main results demonstrated the critical need for rigorous validation of portable gas analyzers before their implementation in clinical and research settings to ensure their applicability across diverse populations and metabolic assessments.
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.