ArticleJournal of neuromuscular diseases2026
Energy expenditure and the accuracy of predictive equations in myotonic dystrophy type 1.
Article in Journal of neuromuscular diseases, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BackgroundMyotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1) is associated with reduced physical activity, overweight and cardiovascular morbidity. Nutritional management requires accurate estimation of total daily energy expenditure (TEE), based on basal metabolic rate (BMR) and physical activity level (PAL). However, DM1-related changes in body composition may reduce the accuracy of commonly used BMR equations. This study evaluated BMR equation accuracy in DM1 versus controls, and assessed PAL and substrate oxidation.MethodsIn this secondary analysis of a prospective case-control study, 15 DM1 patients were compared with 15 age-, sex-, and BMI-matched controls. Body composition was measured using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Overnight metabolic rate (OMR) was assessed by room calorimetry and compared with standard predictive equations (Harris-Benedict, WHO, Mifflin-St Jeor). Additionally, OMR was compared to body composition-based equations (Wang, Nelson, Sabounchi structures 4, 5, and 11). TEE was measured over 15 days using doubly labeled water. PAL was calculated as TEE/OMR, and substrate oxidation was assessed using the respiratory exchange ratio (RER).ResultsStandard predictive equations significantly overestimated metabolic rate in DM1, with median biases of +100 to +165 kcal/day (+7% to +12%, p<0.01), with no significant bias in controls. Structure 11 performed best in DM1 (+0.0%, p=1.000). PAL was lower in DM1 than in controls (1.42 vs. 1.69, p<0.001), whereas RER did not differ.ConclusionCommon predictive equations overestimate energy requirements in DM1. Body composition-based approaches or correction factors may improve estimation, while low PAL should be considered when estimating TEE. These findings have direct implications for nutritional management in DM1.
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.