Assessing validity and reliability of resting metabolic rate in six gas analysis systems.

The Deltatrac Metabolic Monitor (DTC) (VIASYS Healthcare Inc, SensorMedics, Yorba Linda, CA), one of the most popular indirect calorimetry systems for measuring resting metabolic rate (RMR) in human subjects, is no longer being manufactured. This study compared five different gas analysis systems to the DTC. RMR was measured by the DTC and at least one other instrument at three study sites for a total of 38 participants. The five indirect calorimetry systems included the MedGraphics CPX Ultima (Medical Graphics Corp, St Paul, MN), the MedGem (Microlife USA, Golden, CO), Vmax Encore 29 System (VIASYS Healthcare Inc, Yorba Linda, CA), the TrueOne 2400 (Parvo Medics, Sandy, UT), and the Korr ReeVue (Korr Medical Technologies, Salt Lake City, UT). Validity was assessed using paired t tests to compare means; reliability was assessed by using both paired t tests and root mean square calculations with F tests for significance. Within-subject comparisons for validity of RMR revealed a significant difference between the DTC and the Ultima system. Bland-Altman plot analysis showed significant bias with increasing RMR values for the Korr and MedGem systems. Respiratory exchange ratio (RER) analysis showed a significant difference between the DTC and the Ultima system and a trend for a difference with the Vmax system (P=0.09). Reliability assessment for RMR revealed that all instruments had a significantly larger coefficient of variation (CV) (ranging from 4.8% to 10.9%) for RMR compared to the 3.0% CV for the DTC. Reliability assessment for RER data showed none of the instrument CVs was significantly larger than the DTC CV. The results were quite disappointing because none of the instruments equaled the within-person reliability of the DTC. The TrueOne and Vmax systems were the most valid instruments in comparison with the DTC for both RMR and RER assessment. Further testing is needed to identify an instrument with the reliability and validity of the DTC.

Predicting energy expenditure in extremely obese women.

BACKGROUND: The most common clinical method for resting energy expenditure (REE) assessment is prediction equations. The purpose of this study was to elucidate which prediction equation is most accurate for REE assessment in extremely obese women. METHODS: Fourteen extremely obese women (mean +/- SD body mass index: 49.8 +/- 6.2 kg/m(2); age: 49 +/- 10 years) were measured for height and weight and REE via indirect calorimetry (IC) by a metabolic cart system. Predicted REE was evaluated by several equations, including Harris-Benedict with actual body weight, Harris-Benedict with several adjustments to body weight, Cunningham, Mifflin-St Jeor, Owen, World Health Organization (WHO), and Bernstein equations. Accuracy was determined by mean difference data (IC REE - equation REE; Student's paired t-test), correlation coefficients, and agreement between methods by Bland-Altman plots. Accuracy was also evaluated on an individual basis, defined by the percentage of individuals within +/-10% of IC REE. RESULTS: The Mifflin-St Jeor, Harris-Benedict with actual body weight, and the WHO equations were the most accurate in terms of mean predicted REE. The mean predicted REE values by all other equations were different from the IC REE values (p < .1). According to the individual data, the Mifflin-St Jeor was most accurate (14% outside +/-10% IC REE). The Harris-Benedict with actual body weight and WHO equations were less accurate on individual terms, with 29% and 42% of the predicted REE values, respectively, falling outside +/-10% of IC REE. CONCLUSIONS: The Mifflin-St Jeor equation was most accurate method for REE assessment in extremely obese women.