在一组超重女性中，与预测方程相比，手持式间接热量计在研究筛查期间测定静息能量消耗和估计总能量消耗方面具有优势。

Hand-held indirect calorimeter offers advantages compared with prediction equations, in a group of overweight women, to determine resting energy expenditures and estimated total energy expenditures during research screening.

作者信息

Spears Karen E, Kim Hyunsook, Behall Kay M, Conway Joan M

机构信息

College of Agriculture, Biotechnology and Natural Resources, University of Nevada, Reno, 1664 N Virginia St, Mail Stop 142, Reno, NV 89557, USA.

出版信息

J Am Diet Assoc. 2009 May;109(5):836-45. doi: 10.1016/j.jada.2009.02.016.

DOI:10.1016/j.jada.2009.02.016

PMID:19394470

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare standardized prediction equations to a hand-held indirect calorimeter in estimating resting energy and total energy requirements in overweight women.

DESIGN

Resting energy expenditure (REE) was measured by hand-held indirect calorimeter and calculated by prediction equations Harris-Benedict, Mifflin-St Jeor, World Health Organization/Food and Agriculture Organization/United Nations University (WHO), and Dietary Reference Intakes (DRI). Physical activity level, assessed by questionnaire, was used to estimate total energy expenditure (TEE).

SUBJECTS

Subjects (n=39) were female nonsmokers older than 25 years of age with body mass index more than 25.

STATISTICAL ANALYSES

Repeated measures analysis of variance, Bland-Altman plot, and fitted regression line of difference. A difference within +/-10% of two methods indicated agreement.

RESULTS

Significant proportional bias was present between hand-held indirect calorimeter and prediction equations for REE and TEE (P<0.01); prediction equations overestimated at lower values and underestimated at higher values. Mean differences (+/-standard error) for REE and TEE between hand-held indirect calorimeter and Harris-Benedict were -5.98+/-46.7 kcal/day (P=0.90) and 21.40+/-75.7 kcal/day (P=0.78); between hand-held indirect calorimeter and Mifflin-St Jeor were 69.93+/-46.7 kcal/day (P=0.14) and 116.44+/-75.9 kcal/day (P=0.13); between hand-held indirect calorimeter and WHO were -22.03+/-48.4 kcal/day (P=0.65) and -15.8+/-77.9 kcal/day (P=0.84); and between hand-held indirect calorimeter and DRI were 39.65+/-47.4 kcal/day (P=0.41) and 56.36+/-85.5 kcal/day (P=0.51). Less than 50% of predictive equation values were within +/-10% of hand-held indirect calorimeter values, indicating poor agreement.

CONCLUSIONS

A significant discrepancy between predicted and measured energy expenditure was observed. Further evaluation of hand-held indirect calorimeter research screening is needed.

摘要

目的

比较标准化预测方程与手持式间接测热仪在估算超重女性静息能量和总能量需求方面的差异。

设计

通过手持式间接测热仪测量静息能量消耗（REE），并使用哈里斯-本尼迪克特方程、米夫林-圣乔尔方程、世界卫生组织/联合国粮食及农业组织/联合国大学（WHO）方程以及膳食参考摄入量（DRI）方程进行计算。通过问卷调查评估身体活动水平，以估算总能量消耗（TEE）。

受试者

受试者（n = 39）为年龄超过25岁、体重指数超过25的非吸烟女性。

统计分析

重复测量方差分析、布兰德-奥特曼图以及差异拟合回归线。两种方法之间差异在±10%以内表明具有一致性。

结果

手持式间接测热仪与REE和TEE预测方程之间存在显著的比例偏差（P < 0.01）；预测方程在较低值时高估，在较高值时低估。手持式间接测热仪与哈里斯-本尼迪克特方程在REE和TEE方面的平均差异（±标准误差）分别为-5.98 ± 46.7千卡/天（P = 0.90）和21.40 ± 75.7千卡/天（P = 0.78）；手持式间接测热仪与米夫林-圣乔尔方程分别为69.93 ± 46.7千卡/天（P = 0.14）和116.44 ± 75.9千卡/天（P = 0.13）；手持式间接测热仪与WHO方程分别为-22.03 ± 48.4千卡/天（P = 0.65）和-15.8 ± 77.9千卡/天（P = 0.84）；手持式间接测热仪与DRI方程分别为39.65 ± 47.4千卡/天（P = 0.41）和并56.36 ± 85.5千卡/天（P = 0.51）。预测方程值中不到50%在手持式间接测热仪值的±10%以内，表明一致性较差。