You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Accuracy of a Portable Indirect Calorimeter for Measuring Resting Energy Expenditure in Individuals With Cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1002/jpen.1310 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sarah A. Purcell, Sarah A. Elliott, Aoife M. Ryan, Michael B. Sawyer, Carla M. Prado |
| Abstract |
Determining optimal caloric intake for an individual with cancer is complicated by metabolic changes that occur, namely, alterations in resting energy expenditure (REE). There is currently no validated clinically available equation or tool to measure energy expenditure in these patients. Patients with newly diagnosed solid tumors underwent REE assessments using the FitMate GS portable indirect calorimeter and reference VMax metabolic cart; both used canopy hoods. REE was also estimated from the Harris-Benedict, Mifflin St. Jeor, and Henry equations for comparison. Data were analyzed using paired samples t-test and the Bland-Altman approach to assess group-level and individual-level agreement compared with the metabolic cart. A total 26 patients (19 males; body mass index: 27.8 ± 5.5 kg/m2 ; age: 62 ± 10 years) participated in the study. Biases for the FitMate GS and both equations were low (ranging from -44 to -92 kcal or -2.3% to -5.1%), indicating good group-level accuracy. The FitMate GS had low bias, but the widest limits of agreement (-28.0% to 21.2%) compared with the 3 equations (Harris-Benedict: -15.8% to 11.2%; Mifflin St. Jeor: -17.1% to 6.9%; Henry: -15.4% to 11.5%). These differences were not due to volume of oxygen, BMI category, or sex. FitMate GS performed well on a group level, but its accuracy was poor on an individual level. Further research should develop better equations and validate tools to measure energy expenditure for accurate dietary recommendations for patients at nutrition risk. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 33% |
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 36 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 14% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 11% |
| Researcher | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 14 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 22% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 14% |
| Sports and Recreations | 3 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 17 | 47% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 June 2018.
All research outputs
#14,416,163
of 23,090,520 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition
#1,569
of 2,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,702
of 329,782 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition
#17
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,090,520 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,262 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,782 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.