Comparison of the accuracy of resting energy expenditure assessment using bioimpedance analysis and indirect respiratory calorimetry in children with simple obesity

P. Okorokov, O. Vasyukova, O. Bezlepkina
{"title":"Comparison of the accuracy of resting energy expenditure assessment using bioimpedance analysis and indirect respiratory calorimetry in children with simple obesity","authors":"P. Okorokov, O. Vasyukova, O. Bezlepkina","doi":"10.14341/omet12823","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Assessment of resting energy expenditure (REE) is necessary for the formation of a diet for obesity patients. The «gold standard» for assessment of resting energy expenditure (REE) is indirect respiratory calorimetry. Currently, bioimpedance analyzers are increasingly being used in clinical practice to assess energy consumption at rest, including in obese children. However, the accuracy of such an assessment remains unclear.Aims: To determine the accuracy of the assessment of resting energy expenditure using bioimpedance analysis in children with simple obesity compared with indirect respiratory calorimetry.Materials and methods: Resting energy expenditure was assessed by bioimpedance analysis, Harris-Benedict formula and indirect respiratory calorimetry in all obese children. Comparability of methods was assessed using the Bland-Altman analysis.Results: The study included 320 children aged 7 to 17 years with simple obesity.Resting energy expenditure assessed by bioimpedance analysis was on average 232 kcal lower than the actual. A significant CI (-448 to 912 kcal) was revealed, as well as a large LOA from -514 to 979 kcal. REE calculated by the Harris-Benedict formula on average corresponded to the actual one, and CI varied from -38 to 27 kcal. However, large LOA from -514 to 979 kcal, indicating a high individual variability of resting energy consumption.Conclusions: Bioimpedance analyzers underestimate REE in obese children compared to indirect respiratory calorimetry and the Harris-Benedict formula. Given the significant discrepancies in the accuracy of REE assessment, bioimpedance analysis cannot be considered as an alternative to indirect respiratory calorimetry to assess resting energy in children with simple obesity.","PeriodicalId":54700,"journal":{"name":"Obesity and Metabolism-Milan","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Obesity and Metabolism-Milan","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14341/omet12823","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Assessment of resting energy expenditure (REE) is necessary for the formation of a diet for obesity patients. The «gold standard» for assessment of resting energy expenditure (REE) is indirect respiratory calorimetry. Currently, bioimpedance analyzers are increasingly being used in clinical practice to assess energy consumption at rest, including in obese children. However, the accuracy of such an assessment remains unclear.Aims: To determine the accuracy of the assessment of resting energy expenditure using bioimpedance analysis in children with simple obesity compared with indirect respiratory calorimetry.Materials and methods: Resting energy expenditure was assessed by bioimpedance analysis, Harris-Benedict formula and indirect respiratory calorimetry in all obese children. Comparability of methods was assessed using the Bland-Altman analysis.Results: The study included 320 children aged 7 to 17 years with simple obesity.Resting energy expenditure assessed by bioimpedance analysis was on average 232 kcal lower than the actual. A significant CI (-448 to 912 kcal) was revealed, as well as a large LOA from -514 to 979 kcal. REE calculated by the Harris-Benedict formula on average corresponded to the actual one, and CI varied from -38 to 27 kcal. However, large LOA from -514 to 979 kcal, indicating a high individual variability of resting energy consumption.Conclusions: Bioimpedance analyzers underestimate REE in obese children compared to indirect respiratory calorimetry and the Harris-Benedict formula. Given the significant discrepancies in the accuracy of REE assessment, bioimpedance analysis cannot be considered as an alternative to indirect respiratory calorimetry to assess resting energy in children with simple obesity.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
单纯性肥胖儿童静息能量消耗评价的生物阻抗分析与间接呼吸量热法的准确性比较
背景:评估静息能量消耗(REE)对于肥胖患者饮食的形成是必要的。评估静息能量消耗(REE)的“金标准”是间接呼吸量热法。目前,生物阻抗分析仪越来越多地用于临床实践,以评估休息时的能量消耗,包括肥胖儿童。然而,这种评估的准确性尚不清楚。目的:与间接呼吸量热法比较,确定单纯性肥胖儿童静息能量消耗的生物阻抗分析的准确性。材料和方法:采用生物阻抗分析、Harris-Benedict公式和间接呼吸量热法评估所有肥胖儿童的静息能量消耗。采用Bland-Altman分析评估方法的可比性。结果:该研究包括320名7至17岁的单纯性肥胖儿童。生物阻抗分析评估的静息能量消耗平均比实际低232千卡。在-448 ~ 912 kcal之间存在显著的CI值,LOA值在-514 ~ 979 kcal之间,根据Harris-Benedict公式计算的REE值与实际REE值基本一致,CI值在-38 ~ 27 kcal之间,但LOA值在-514 ~ 979 kcal之间存在较大的个体差异,表明静息能量消耗存在较大的个体差异。结论:与间接呼吸量热法和Harris-Benedict公式相比,生物阻抗分析仪低估了肥胖儿童的REE。鉴于REE评估的准确性存在显著差异,生物阻抗分析不能作为间接呼吸量热法评估单纯性肥胖儿童静息能量的替代方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Obesity and Metabolism-Milan
Obesity and Metabolism-Milan 医学-内分泌学与代谢
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Clinical guidelines ‘Hyperprolactinemia’ (draft) The effect of intense exercise on muscle power and functional abilities of obese people Eating behavior features and preferred diets in underweight and obese young men Factors influencing the severity of COVID-19 course for patients with diabetes mellitus in tashkent: a retrospective cohort study Liraglutide in adolescents with simple obesity and gastrointestinal comorbidities: treatment experience
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1