The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of the Cosmed K4 b2 and the Deltatrac IITM metabolic cart in measuring resting energy expenditure in adults
Abstract
Background and aims The objective of the study was to compare data obtained from the Cosmed K4 b(2) and the Deltatrac II metabolic cart for the purpose of determining the validity of the Cosmed K4 b(2) in measuring resting energy expenditure. Methods Nine adult subjects (four male, five female) were measured. Resting energy expenditure was measured in consecutive sessions using the Cosmed K4 b(2), the Deltatrac II metabolic cart separately and the Cosmed K4 b(2) and Deltatrac II metabolic cart simultaneously, performed in random order. Resting energy expenditure (REE) data from both devices were then compared with values obtained from predictive equations. Results Bland and Altman analysis revealed a mean bias for the four variables, REE, respiratory quotient (RQ), V CO(2), V O(2) between data obtained from Cosmed K4 b(2) and Deltatrac II metabolic cart of 268+/-702 kcal/day, -0.0+/-0.2, 26.4+/-118.2 and 51.6+/-126.5 ml/min, respectively. Corresponding limits of agreement for the same four variables were all large. Also, Bland and Altman analysis revealed a larger mean bias between predicted REE and measured REE using Cosmed K4 b(2) data (-194+/-603 kcal/day) than using Deltatrac metabolic cart data (73+/-197 kcal/day). Conclusions Variability between the two devices was very high and a degree of measurement error was detected. Data from the Cosmed K4 b(2) provided variable results on comparison with predicted values, thus, would seem an invalid device for measuring adults.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The Douglas bag, mass spectrometer, and other laboratory-based metabolic system assessments of the validity of the Cosmed K4b2 unit reported positive, but consistent within-study bias ranging from 2% to 25% across the relevant measurement range.
“The Douglas bag, mass spectrometer, and other laboratory-based metabolic system assessments of the validity of the Cosmed K4b2 unit (22–28) we used reported positive, but consistent within-study bias ranging from 2% to 25% across the relevant measurement range.”
From Real-world walking economy: can laboratory equations predict field energy expenditure? (2021) · cites this paper as [25]
Accuracy metrics for individuals could misrepresent equation predictive accuracy because the measurement variability of the portable calorimeter would be present to an unknown extent.
“Equally important, accuracy metrics for individuals could misrepresent equation predictive accuracy because the measurement variability of the portable calorimeter (22–28, Fig. 3) would be present to an unknown extent.”
From Real-world walking economy: can laboratory equations predict field energy expenditure? (2021) · cites this paper as [25]
The calorimeter model in question consistently exceeds well-validated laboratory systems under similar conditions by magnitudes ranging from 2% to 25%.
“The calorimeter model in question consistently exceeds well-validated laboratory systems under similar conditions by magnitudes ranging from 2% to 25% (22–28).”
From Real-world walking economy: can laboratory equations predict field energy expenditure? (2021) · cites this paper as [25]
Citations
Cites
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ho, S. S., Dhaliwal, S. S., Hills, A. P., & Pal, S. (2012) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/1471-2458-12-704 · Cited by 341
Real-world walking economy: can laboratory equations predict field energy expenditure?
Weyand, P. G., Ludlow, L. W., Nollkamper, J. J., & Buller, M. J. (2021) · Journal of Applied Physiology · doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00121.2021 · Cited by 6
Metadata
- Authors
- LITTLEWOOD, R.
- Venue
- Clinical Nutrition
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2002-12
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 491-497
- ISSN
- 0261-5614
- Cited by
- 30
- References
- 1
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
