Cited by 133Clinical Nutrition and GastroenterologyHemodynamic Monitoring and TherapyHyperglycemia and glycemic control in critically ill and hospitalized patients

Prevalence of Underprescription or Overprescription of Energy Needs in Critically Ill Mechanically Ventilated Adults as Determined by Indirect Calorimetry: A Systematic Literature Review

Tatucu‐Babet, Oana A., Ridley, Emma J., Tierney, Audrey C.·2016·Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Underfeeding and overfeeding has been associated with adverse patient outcomes. Resting energy expenditure can be measured using indirect calorimetry. In its absence, predictive equations are used. A systematic literature review was conducted to determine the prevalence of underprescription and overprescription of energy needs in adult mechanically ventilated critically ill patients by comparing predictive equations to indirect calorimetry measurements. METHODS: Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, Scopus, and EMBASE databases were searched in May 2013 to identify studies that used both predictive equations and indirect calorimetry to determine energy expenditure. Reference lists of included publications were also searched. The number of predictive equations that underestimated or overestimated energy expenditure by ±10% when compared to indirect calorimetry measurements were noted at both an individual and group level. RESULTS: In total, 2349 publications were retrieved, with 18 studies included. Of the 160 variations of 13 predictive equations reviewed at a group level, 38% underestimated and 12% overestimated energy expenditure by more than 10%. The remaining 50% of equations estimated energy expenditure to within ±10 of indirect calorimetry measurements. On an individual patient level, predictive equations underestimated and overestimated energy expenditure in 13-90% and 0-88% of patients, respectively. Differences of up to 43% below and 66% above indirect calorimetry values were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Large discrepancies exist between predictive equation estimates and indirect calorimetry measurements in individuals and groups. Further research is needed to determine the influence of indirect calorimetry and predictive equation limitations in contributing to these observed differences.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0148607114567898

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Predictive equations are associated with significant inaccuracy (up to 60%), leading to over or under evaluation of the needs and inducing over or underfeeding.

    “The predictive equations are associated with significant inaccuracy (up to 60%), leading to over or under evaluation of the needs and inducing over or underfeeding (120).”
  • Numerous meta-analyses have demonstrated the poor value of predictive equations, and variability is increased because body weight remains difficult to accurately assess.

    “Numerous metaanalyses have demonstrated the poor value of predictive equations [43,44], variability that is increased because body weight remains difficult to accurately assess [45].”
  • Previous studies have demonstrated the low accuracy of various REE predictive equations based on weight, height, age, gender, etc., for critical illness.

    “Previous studies have demonstrated the low accuracy of various REE predictive equations based on weight, height, age, gender, etc., for critical illness [2, 25].”
  • Predictive equations are mostly inaccurate in predicting REE in critically ill patients.

    “However, these equations, which were originally developed basing data from healthy individuals, have been studied extensively and found to be mostly inaccurate in predicting REE in critically ill patients [2].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tatucu‐Babet, O. A., Ridley, E. J., & Tierney, A. C.
Affiliations
  • The Alfred Hospital (AU)
  • La Trobe University (AU)
Venue
Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-01-20
Volume
40
Issue
2
Pages
212-225
ISSN
  • 0148-6071 (ISSN-L)
  • 1941-2444
OpenAlex
W2055203107
Cited by
133
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 7
FWCI
1.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Clinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Hemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Hyperglycemia and glycemic control in critically ill and hospitalized patients
Keywords
resting energy expenditure, load forecasting, prediction equations, indirect calorimetry, mechanical ventilation, critically ill adults, underfeeding, overfeeding, enteral nutrition
MeSH terms
Energy Intake, Calorimetry, Indirect, Energy Metabolism, Humans, Nutritional Requirements, Respiration, Artificial, Prevalence, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Critical Illness, Nutritional Support

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