Reproducibility of resting metabolic rate measurement in children

Ventham, J. C.; Reilly, John J.

doi:10.1017/s0007114599000781

Cited by 33 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar results were observed by others (Table 4; Murgatroyd et al 1987;Fredrix et al 1990;Rieper et al 1993;Figueroa-Colon et al 1996;Ventham & Reilly, 1999). Discrepancies could be due to differences in protocol, methodology and study population.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Intra-individual variation of basal metabolic rate and the influence of daily habitual physical activity before testing

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study determined the intra-individual variation of BMR measurements, using a standard out-patient protocol, with the subjects transporting themselves to the laboratory for the BMR measurements after spending the night at home. The effect of a non-fasting state and variation in daily habitual physical activity the day before testing was evaluated. Eight male and eleven female subjects participated in three BMR measurements with 2-week intervals. Physical activity was estimated with a tri-axial accelerometer for movement registration, during the 3 d before each BMR measurement. There were no significant differences in estimated BMR (ANOVA repeated measures, P¼0·88) and in physical activity (ANOVA repeated measures, P¼0·21). Mean within-subject CV in BMR was found to be 3·3 (SD 2·1) %, ranging from 0·4 to 7·2 %. Differences between BMR measurements could not be explained by differences in physical activity the day before; however the mean within-subject CV in BMR changed from 5·7 to 5·2 % after correcting for within-machine variability and from 5·2 to 3·3 % after excluding five measurements because of non-compliance to the protocol including fasting. In conclusion, BMR values measured with a standard out-patient protocol are sufficiently reproducible for most practical purposes despite the within-subject variability in physical activity the day before the measurement. For this purpose, however, non-fasting subjects must be excluded and a regular function check of the ventilated-hood system is recommendable. Reproducibility: Calorimetry: Body composition: AccelerometerBMR is the main component of average daily metabolic rate. It is defined as the daily rate of energy metabolism an individual needs to maintain and preserve the integrity of vital functions. A measurement of BMR must meet certain conditions. The subject must be awake and the measurement must be performed in a thermoneutral environment to avoid heat production or heat loss for maintenance of body temperature. Furthermore the subject must be in a fasted state (absence of diet-induced thermogenesis) and in rest (absence of activity-induced energy expenditure).Diet-induced thermogenesis is an increase in energy expenditure (EE) above BMR after eating. A 10 -12 h fast before BMR measurements is the accepted procedure followed by investigators to eliminate the thermic effect of food on basal EE. However, the time interval required to eliminate any residual effect of physical activity on BMR has not yet been described in a similar way. Some studies have observed that moderate-intensity physical activity elevates metabolic rate for only a few minutes to a few hours (Bahr et al.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Intra-individual variation of basal metabolic rate and the influence of daily habitual physical activity before testing

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, repeated measures of Deltatrac RMR were not undertaken. The primary reason is that the reproducibility of this indirect calorimeter has been fully established by other investigators to be within 5% for repeated measures (Shetty et al, 1996b;Ventham & Reilly, 1999). Secondly, the protocol employed with this investigation required a 20-min period of measurement to obtain a steady-state reading, a factor that would have provided greater patient burden with repeated tests.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Comparison between Medgem and Deltatrac resting metabolic rate measurements

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The primary aims of this trial were to evaluate the reproducibility of a portable handheld calorimeter (Medgem) in a clinical population, and to compare its measures with a calorimeter in typical use with these patients. Design: Cross-sectional clinical validation study. Setting: Outpatient Clinical Research Center. Subjects: A total of 24 stable home nutrition support patients. Interventions: In random order three measures of resting metabolic rate (RMR) were taken after a 4-h fast, 15 min rest and 2-h abstention from exercise. Two measures were taken with the same Medgem (MG) and one with the traditional calorimeter (Deltatrac). Reproducibility of MG measures and their comparability to a Deltatrac measure were assessed by Bland-Altman analysis, with 47250 kcal/day established a priori as a clinically unacceptable error. In addition, disagreement between the two types of measures was defined as greater than 10% difference. Results: The mean difference between two MG measures was À6.8 kcal/day, with limits of agreement between 233 and À247 kcal/day and clinically acceptable. The mean difference between the Deltatrac and mean of two MG measures was À162 kcal/day, with limits of agreement between 577 and À253 kcal/day and clinically unacceptable. In all, 80% of the repeated MG RMR measures agreed within 10%, and the mean MG reading agreed with the Deltatrac in 60% of cases. Conclusions: RMR obtained using the MG calorimeter has an acceptable degree of reproducibility, and is acceptable to patients. The MG measures, however, are frequently lower than traditional measures and require further validation prior to application to practice in this vulnerable patient group.

show abstract

“…However, in both of these studies, an interval of 2 weeks occurred between the first and second measurement and the patients were admitted to hospital overnight prior to their first measurement. Recently, Ventham and Reilly (1999) studied REE measurements in healthy prepubertal children on alternate days and found them to be highly reproducible. The mean CV was 2.6% and the reproducibility index (variance in REE between children divided by the variance in REE between and within children) was 0.95.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variations in the measurement of resting energy expenditure in children with cystic fibrosis

et al. 2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To investigate in children with cystic fibrosis (CF) and children without CF: (1) the test -retest reproducibility of a 20 min resting energy expenditure (REE) measurement; and (2) the long-term reproducibility of REE measurements in children with CF using longitudinal data. Design: Cross-sectional study and longitudinal cohort. Setting: A tertiary referral paediatric hospital. Subjects: A total of 31 (11 male, 20 female) children (aged 12.8 AE 3.6 y) with CF and 32 (14 male, 18 female) healthy children without CF (aged 12.2AE 2.3 y) were enrolled in the short-term reproducibility study. Long-term REE measurement reproducibility was assessed in another 14 children (5 male, 9 female) with CF, comparing their initial REE measurement with a subsequent measurement 1 -2 y later. Methods: All children had measurements of height, weight, skinfold thickness and indirect calorimetry. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in REE between repeated measurements in children with CF (mean AE s.d., 6240AE 1280 and 6220 AE 1315 kJ=24 h) and in the children without CF (6040 AE 956 and 6015 AE 943 kJ=24 h). For the children with CF, the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.99 and for children without CF the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.97. The measurement errors were 119 and 177 kJ, respectively. Approximately 80% of the variation in REE in the CF group and 70% in the group without CF was explained by fat-free mass (FFM). Analysis of the longitudinal CF data show there was no difference in REE between a child's first measurement (5140 AE 1140 kJ) and their subsequent measurement (5460 AE 1190 kJ), after adjustment for changes in body size between the measurements. Conclusion: This study has demonstrated that a short-term 20 min REE measurement is reproducible and therefore valid in children with CF and children without CF. These results also indicate that in children with CF, long-term REE measurements are reproducible.

show abstract

Reproducibility of resting metabolic rate measurement in children

Cited by 33 publications

References 11 publications

Intra-individual variation of basal metabolic rate and the influence of daily habitual physical activity before testing

Intra-individual variation of basal metabolic rate and the influence of daily habitual physical activity before testing

Comparison between Medgem and Deltatrac resting metabolic rate measurements

Variations in the measurement of resting energy expenditure in children with cystic fibrosis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About