↓ Skip to main content

Can calculation of energy expenditure based on CO2 measurements replace indirect calorimetry?

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
17 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
114 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
Can calculation of energy expenditure based on CO2 measurements replace indirect calorimetry?
Published in
Critical Care, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13054-016-1595-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Taku Oshima, Séverine Graf, Claudia-Paula Heidegger, Laurence Genton, Jérôme Pugin, Claude Pichard

Abstract

Methods to calculate energy expenditure (EE) based on CO2 measurements (EEVCO2) have been proposed as a surrogate to indirect calorimetry. This study aimed at evaluating whether EEVCO2 could be considered as an alternative to EE measured by indirect calorimetry. Indirect calorimetry measurements conducted for clinical purposes on 278 mechanically ventilated ICU patients were retrospectively analyzed. EEVCO2 was calculated by a converted Weir's equation using CO2 consumption (VCO2) measured by indirect calorimetry and assumed respiratory quotients (RQ): 0.85 (EEVCO2_0.85) and food quotient (FQ; EEVCO2_FQ). Mean calculated EEVCO2 and measured EE were compared by paired t test. Accuracy of EEVCO2 was evaluated according to the clinically relevant standard of 5% accuracy rate to the measured EE, and the more general standard of 10% accuracy rate. The effects of the timing of measurement (before or after the 7th ICU day) and energy provision rates (<90 or ≥90% of EE) on 5% accuracy rates were also analyzed (chi-square tests). Mean biases for EEVCO2_0.85 and EEVCO2_FQ were -21 and -48 kcal/d (p = 0.04 and 0.00, respectively), and 10% accuracy rates were 77.7 and 77.3%, respectively. However, 5% accuracy rates were 46.0 and 46.4%, respectively. Accuracy rates were not affected by the timing of the measurement, or the energy provision rates at the time of measurements. Calculated EE based on CO2 measurement was not sufficiently accurate to consider the results as an alternative to measured EE by indirect calorimetry. Therefore, EE measured by indirect calorimetry remains as the gold standard to guide nutrition therapy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 114 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 13%
Student > Bachelor 13 11%
Student > Master 12 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 10%
Professor 8 7%
Other 24 21%
Unknown 31 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Engineering 5 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Other 14 12%
Unknown 40 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 25 January 2017.
All research outputs
#4,172,065
of 25,529,543 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,971
of 6,580 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,213
of 422,723 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#37
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,529,543 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,580 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
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 422,723 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.