估计成人唐氏综合征静息代谢率常用预测方程的比较

IF 2.1 2区 医学 Q1 EDUCATION, SPECIAL
Brian C. Helsel, Joseph R. Sherman, Amy E. Bodde, Richard A. Washburn, Lauren T. Ptomey
{"title":"估计成人唐氏综合征静息代谢率常用预测方程的比较","authors":"Brian C. Helsel,&nbsp;Joseph R. Sherman,&nbsp;Amy E. Bodde,&nbsp;Richard A. Washburn,&nbsp;Lauren T. Ptomey","doi":"10.1111/jir.13215","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Resting metabolic rate (RMR), the energy required by the body at rest, is the largest part of total daily energy expenditure. Commonly used prediction equations may overestimate RMR in adults with Down syndrome (DS). The purpose of this study was to assess the equivalency of prediction equations for estimating RMR in adults with DS.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Twenty-five adults with DS (24 ± 5 years of age, 64% female) completed RMR assessments at an academic medical centre in the United States between November 2021 and July 2023. Measured RMR (kilocalories per day) was compared to estimated RMR from eight prediction equations using a null hypothesis significance (i.e., a paired <i>t</i>-test) and equivalence (i.e., a two one-sided test) tests. Bland–Altman plots, Pearson correlations and linear regressions were used to evaluate the bias between the measured and predicted RMR values.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Measured RMR in adults with DS was 1090 ± 136 kcal/day. Prediction equations overestimated RMR by 8 ± 16% (76 ± 165 kcal/day) to 45 ± 16% (488 ± 165 kcal/day) except for the Bernstein fat-free mass equation which underestimated RMR by 0.2 ± 11.5% (8 ± 123 kcal/day) and was statistically equivalent to measured RMR in our sample (<i>p</i> = 0.027).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>The Bernstein fat-free mass equation offers better accuracy in adults with DS than other RMR prediction equations, but the equation needs to be evaluated in larger, more diverse samples of adults with DS.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":16163,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Intellectual Disability Research","volume":"69 5","pages":"428-436"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Comparison of Commonly Used Prediction Equations for Estimating Resting Metabolic Rate in Adults With Down Syndrome\",\"authors\":\"Brian C. Helsel,&nbsp;Joseph R. Sherman,&nbsp;Amy E. Bodde,&nbsp;Richard A. Washburn,&nbsp;Lauren T. Ptomey\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jir.13215\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Resting metabolic rate (RMR), the energy required by the body at rest, is the largest part of total daily energy expenditure. Commonly used prediction equations may overestimate RMR in adults with Down syndrome (DS). The purpose of this study was to assess the equivalency of prediction equations for estimating RMR in adults with DS.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Twenty-five adults with DS (24 ± 5 years of age, 64% female) completed RMR assessments at an academic medical centre in the United States between November 2021 and July 2023. Measured RMR (kilocalories per day) was compared to estimated RMR from eight prediction equations using a null hypothesis significance (i.e., a paired <i>t</i>-test) and equivalence (i.e., a two one-sided test) tests. Bland–Altman plots, Pearson correlations and linear regressions were used to evaluate the bias between the measured and predicted RMR values.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Measured RMR in adults with DS was 1090 ± 136 kcal/day. Prediction equations overestimated RMR by 8 ± 16% (76 ± 165 kcal/day) to 45 ± 16% (488 ± 165 kcal/day) except for the Bernstein fat-free mass equation which underestimated RMR by 0.2 ± 11.5% (8 ± 123 kcal/day) and was statistically equivalent to measured RMR in our sample (<i>p</i> = 0.027).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>The Bernstein fat-free mass equation offers better accuracy in adults with DS than other RMR prediction equations, but the equation needs to be evaluated in larger, more diverse samples of adults with DS.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16163,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Intellectual Disability Research\",\"volume\":\"69 5\",\"pages\":\"428-436\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Intellectual Disability Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jir.13215\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SPECIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Intellectual Disability Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jir.13215","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:静息代谢率(Resting metabolic rate, RMR),即身体在休息时所需的能量,是每日总能量消耗的最大部分。常用的预测方程可能会高估唐氏综合征(DS)成人的RMR。本研究的目的是评估用于估计成人退行性椎体滑移患者RMR的预测方程的等效性。方法:2021年11月至2023年7月,25名成年DS患者(24±5岁,64%为女性)在美国一家学术医疗中心完成了RMR评估。使用零假设显著性(即配对t检验)和等效性(即双单侧检验)检验,将测量的RMR(每天千卡)与来自八个预测方程的估计RMR进行比较。使用Bland-Altman图、Pearson相关和线性回归来评估测量和预测RMR值之间的偏差。结果:成年DS患者的RMR测量值为1090±136千卡/天。预测方程将RMR高估了8±16%(76±165千卡/天)至45±16%(488±165千卡/天),但Bernstein无脂质量方程将RMR低估了0.2±11.5%(8±123千卡/天),与我们样本中的测量RMR在统计上相当(p = 0.027)。结论:与其他RMR预测方程相比,Bernstein无脂肪质量方程在成人DS患者中具有更好的准确性,但该方程需要在更大、更多样化的成人DS患者样本中进行评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Comparison of Commonly Used Prediction Equations for Estimating Resting Metabolic Rate in Adults With Down Syndrome

Background

Resting metabolic rate (RMR), the energy required by the body at rest, is the largest part of total daily energy expenditure. Commonly used prediction equations may overestimate RMR in adults with Down syndrome (DS). The purpose of this study was to assess the equivalency of prediction equations for estimating RMR in adults with DS.

Methods

Twenty-five adults with DS (24 ± 5 years of age, 64% female) completed RMR assessments at an academic medical centre in the United States between November 2021 and July 2023. Measured RMR (kilocalories per day) was compared to estimated RMR from eight prediction equations using a null hypothesis significance (i.e., a paired t-test) and equivalence (i.e., a two one-sided test) tests. Bland–Altman plots, Pearson correlations and linear regressions were used to evaluate the bias between the measured and predicted RMR values.

Results

Measured RMR in adults with DS was 1090 ± 136 kcal/day. Prediction equations overestimated RMR by 8 ± 16% (76 ± 165 kcal/day) to 45 ± 16% (488 ± 165 kcal/day) except for the Bernstein fat-free mass equation which underestimated RMR by 0.2 ± 11.5% (8 ± 123 kcal/day) and was statistically equivalent to measured RMR in our sample (p = 0.027).

Conclusions

The Bernstein fat-free mass equation offers better accuracy in adults with DS than other RMR prediction equations, but the equation needs to be evaluated in larger, more diverse samples of adults with DS.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
5.60%
发文量
81
期刊介绍: The Journal of Intellectual Disability Research is devoted exclusively to the scientific study of intellectual disability and publishes papers reporting original observations in this field. The subject matter is broad and includes, but is not restricted to, findings from biological, educational, genetic, medical, psychiatric, psychological and sociological studies, and ethical, philosophical, and legal contributions that increase knowledge on the treatment and prevention of intellectual disability and of associated impairments and disabilities, and/or inform public policy and practice. Expert reviews on themes in which recent research has produced notable advances will be included. Such reviews will normally be by invitation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信