↓ Skip to main content

Measuring energy expenditure in the intensive care unit: a comparison of indirect calorimetry by E-sCOVX and Quark RMR with Deltatrac II in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, January 2016
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 (87th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
25 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 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
Measuring energy expenditure in the intensive care unit: a comparison of indirect calorimetry by E-sCOVX and Quark RMR with Deltatrac II in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients
Published in
Critical Care, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13054-016-1232-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martin S Rehal, Erik Fiskaare, Inga Tjäder, Åke Norberg, Olav Rooyackers, Jan Wernerman, Martin Sundström Rehal

Abstract

Indirect calorimetry allows the determination of energy expenditure in critically ill patients by measuring oxygen consumption (VO2) and carbon dioxide production (VCO2). Recent studies have demonstrated variable performance of "breath-by-breath" instruments compared to mixing chamber technology. The aim of this study was to validate two modern devices (E-sCOVX and Quark RMR) against a reference method (Deltatrac II). Measurements of VO2/VCO2 with the test and reference devices were performed simultaneously over a 20-min period in mechanically ventilated adult intensive care unit patients. Accuracy and precision of instruments were analyzed using Bland-Altman plots. Forty-eight measurements in 22 patients were included for analysis. Both E-sCOVX and Quark RMR overestimated VO2 and VCO2 compared to Deltatrac II, corresponding to a 10 % higher mean resting energy expenditure. Limits of agreement of resting energy expenditure within ±2 standard deviations were ±461 kcal/24 h (±21 % expressed as percentage error) for ΔE-sCOVX-Deltatrac II and ±465 kcal/24 h (±22 %) for ΔQuark RMR-Deltatrac II. Both test devices overestimate VO2 and VCO2 compared to Deltatrac II. The observed limits of agreement are comparable to those commonly accepted in evaluations of circulatory monitoring, and significantly less than results from predictive equations. We hypothesize that the discrepancy between methods is due to patient/ventilator-related factors that affect the synchronization of gas and spirometry waveforms. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, Trial ID ACTRN12615000205538 . Date registered 3 March 2015.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 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 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Unknown 80 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 24%
Other 18 22%
Student > Master 9 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Other 14 17%
Unknown 8 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 58%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Engineering 4 5%
Computer Science 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 12 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 17 March 2016.
All research outputs
#1,747,133
of 18,062,643 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,613
of 5,417 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,066
of 273,307 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#21
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,062,643 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,417 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 273,307 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.