↓ Skip to main content

Accuracy of a Portable Indirect Calorimeter for Measuring Resting Energy Expenditure in Individuals With Cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
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.
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 18%
Student > Bachelor 4 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 14%
Other 3 11%
Researcher 3 11%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 6 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 18%
Sports and Recreations 3 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Unspecified 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 9 32%

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
#12,729,641
of 20,581,464 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition
#1,492
of 2,153 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,538
of 296,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition
#6
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,581,464 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,153 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. 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 296,262 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.