ArticleCureus2025
A Prospective Comparative Study to Assess the Accuracy of Energy Expenditures Calculated by Bioimpedance Analysis and Indirect Calorimetry.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIt is crucial to precisely measure resting energy expenditure (REE) to provide nutritional support, especially for obese individuals. Although indirect calorimetry (IC) is the gold standard, its limited accessibility necessitates the evaluation of alternative methods such as bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA).
objectiveTo compare the accuracy of REE measurements obtained using BIA and IC in obese adults.
methodsThis prospective cross-sectional observational study was conducted in the intensive care unit (ICU) of S. L. Raheja Hospital, Mumbai. Fifty adults aged 18-65 years with a body mass index (BMI) ≥25 kg/m² were evaluated. REE was measured using BIA (InBody, Seoul, Korea) and IC (COSMED Q-NRG, Rome, Italy) under standardized fasting and resting conditions. A paired t-test was used to compare mean REE values, and additional agreement and equivalence analyses were performed.
resultsThe mean REE measured by IC was 1601.56 ± 376.72 kcal/day, while BIA yielded 1554.20 ± 355.70 kcal/day. The two approaches did not differ significantly (p = 0.05196). However, non-significance alone does not imply equivalence; therefore, further analyses were conducted. Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated a small mean bias between the two methods, with values within the 95% limits of agreement and no evidence of proportional bias. Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) indicated strong concordance, and the mean absolute percentage error remained within an acceptable clinical margin of ±10% relative to IC. A two one-sided test (TOST) procedure confirmed statistical equivalence between BIA and IC within the predefined ±10% equivalence margin. These findings collectively suggest that BIA provides a clinically comparable estimate of REE to IC, supporting its potential use when IC is unavailable.
conclusionBIA demonstrated clinically acceptable agreement with IC for estimating REE in obese Indian adults. Using a predefined equivalence margin of ±10% (≈±160 kcal/day) of IC values, both the mean bias and Bland-Altman limits of agreement fell within this range, supporting statistical and clinical comparability between the two methods. Given its accessibility, portability, and cost-effectiveness, BIA may serve as a practical alternative to IC in clinical and research settings, although further validation across larger and more diverse populations is warranted.
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.