Olivas-León César Ulises, Olivas-Aguirre Francisco Javier, Chávez-Guevara Isaac Armando, Almanza-Reyes Horacio Eusebio, Patrón-Romero Leslie, Rodríguez-Uribe Genaro, Amaro-Gahete Francisco José, Hernández-Lepe Marco Antonio
Conahcyt National Laboratory of Body Composition and Energetic Metabolism (LaNCoCoME), Tijuana 22390, Mexico.
Faculty of Medicine and Psychology, Autonomous University of Baja California, Tijuana 22390, Mexico.
Sports (Basel). 2025 Jun 22;13(7):198. doi: 10.3390/sports13070198.
Correct assessment of resting metabolic rate (RMR) is fundamental for estimating total energy expenditure in both clinical nutrition and sports sciences research. Various methods have been proposed for RMR determination, including predictive equations, isotopic dilution techniques, and indirect calorimetry. Over the past two decades, portable gas analyzers have emerged as promising alternatives, offering more accessible and cost-effective solutions for metabolic assessment. However, evidence regarding their validity remains inconsistent, particularly across diverse populations and varying metabolic assessment protocols.
This systematic review was conducted in May 2025 using the PubMed, Web of Science, and EBSCO databases, following the PRISMA-DTA guidelines, and included observational studies with the objective of examining the available evidence regarding the validity of portable gas analyzers to determine RMR in humans. The methodological quality of each study was assessed using the NIH Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies.
From an initial pool of 230 studies, 16 met the eligibility criteria. The findings revealed notable variability in measurement validity among devices, mainly influenced by device model, population characteristics, and methodological factors. While portable analyzers such as FitMate and Q-NRG exhibited high validity, MedGem exhibited systematic biases, particularly in individuals with higher adiposity, leading to RMR overestimations.
The main results demonstrated the critical need for rigorous validation of portable gas analyzers before their implementation in clinical and research settings to ensure their applicability across diverse populations and metabolic assessments.
准确评估静息代谢率（RMR）对于临床营养和运动科学研究中估算总能量消耗至关重要。已提出多种测定RMR的方法，包括预测方程、同位素稀释技术和间接测热法。在过去二十年中，便携式气体分析仪已成为有前景的替代方法，为代谢评估提供了更易获取且具成本效益的解决方案。然而，关于其有效性的证据仍不一致，尤其是在不同人群和不同代谢评估方案中。
本系统评价于2025年5月进行，遵循PRISMA-DTA指南，使用PubMed、Web of Science和EBSCO数据库，纳入观察性研究，目的是检验关于便携式气体分析仪测定人体RMR有效性的现有证据。使用美国国立卫生研究院观察性队列和横断面研究质量评估工具评估每项研究的方法学质量。
从最初的230项研究中，16项符合纳入标准。研究结果显示，不同设备在测量有效性方面存在显著差异，主要受设备型号、人群特征和方法学因素影响。虽然FitMate和Q-NRG等便携式分析仪显示出较高的有效性，但MedGem存在系统偏差，尤其是在肥胖程度较高的个体中，导致RMR高估。
主要结果表明，在临床和研究环境中使用便携式气体分析仪之前，迫切需要进行严格验证，以确保其在不同人群和代谢评估中的适用性。
