基于氮平衡和指示氨基酸氧化法的蛋白质需要量比较:综述和荟萃分析。

IF 3.8 3区 医学 Q2 NUTRITION & DIETETICS
Ryoichi Tagawa, Daiki Watanabe, Yumiko Inoue, Mizuki Takaragawa, Qinglin Jin, Kyoko Ito, Kae Yamazaki, Chiaki Sanbongi, Yoichi Hatamoto, Motohiko Miyachi
{"title":"基于氮平衡和指示氨基酸氧化法的蛋白质需要量比较:综述和荟萃分析。","authors":"Ryoichi Tagawa, Daiki Watanabe, Yumiko Inoue, Mizuki Takaragawa, Qinglin Jin, Kyoko Ito, Kae Yamazaki, Chiaki Sanbongi, Yoichi Hatamoto, Motohiko Miyachi","doi":"10.1016/j.tjnut.2025.08.036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>An accurate understanding of protein requirements helps prevent health risks caused by deficiency. No statistical comparison exists between the nitrogen balance (NB) method, the standard method for estimating protein requirements, and the indicator amino acid oxidation (IAAO) method, which has been increasingly studied.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to quantitatively compare the protein requirements of the NB and IAAO methods through meta-analyses.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Studies estimating protein requirements in healthy individuals using the NB or IAAO methods were reviewed. First, previous reviews were systematically searched to identify original NB articles up to 2012 and IAAO articles up to 2023 from their references. Original articles published after each review's search period, up to 11 January, 2025, were systematically searched using PubMed and Ichushi-Web. Manual searches were performed through citation tracking of included literature and gray literature. This study followed PRISMA guidelines. Differences in protein requirements between assessment methods were compared using Welch's t test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 43 NB articles (777 participants) and 17 IAAO articles (186 participants) were included. In nonathletes, protein requirements were significantly higher by 36% with IAAO [mean: 0.88 g/kg/d; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.85, 0.90] than with NB (mean: 0.64 g/kg/d; 95% CI: 0.61, 0.68). In athletes, protein requirements were significantly higher by 27% with IAAO (mean: 1.61 g/kg/d; 95% CI: 1.44, 1.78) than with NB (mean: 1.27 g/kg/d; 95% CI: 1.06, 1.47). In nonathletes, IAAO values remained significantly higher than NB values across age and sex subgroups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The protein requirements calculated using the IAAO method were ∼30% higher than those obtained using the NB method. The quantitative findings of this study provide important information for scientific consideration of protein requirements. This trial was registered at PROSPERO as CRD42025636735.</p>","PeriodicalId":16620,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Nutrition","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Protein Requirements Based on the Nitrogen Balance and Indicator Amino Acid Oxidation Methods: An Umbrella Review and Meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Ryoichi Tagawa, Daiki Watanabe, Yumiko Inoue, Mizuki Takaragawa, Qinglin Jin, Kyoko Ito, Kae Yamazaki, Chiaki Sanbongi, Yoichi Hatamoto, Motohiko Miyachi\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.tjnut.2025.08.036\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>An accurate understanding of protein requirements helps prevent health risks caused by deficiency. No statistical comparison exists between the nitrogen balance (NB) method, the standard method for estimating protein requirements, and the indicator amino acid oxidation (IAAO) method, which has been increasingly studied.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to quantitatively compare the protein requirements of the NB and IAAO methods through meta-analyses.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Studies estimating protein requirements in healthy individuals using the NB or IAAO methods were reviewed. First, previous reviews were systematically searched to identify original NB articles up to 2012 and IAAO articles up to 2023 from their references. Original articles published after each review's search period, up to 11 January, 2025, were systematically searched using PubMed and Ichushi-Web. Manual searches were performed through citation tracking of included literature and gray literature. This study followed PRISMA guidelines. Differences in protein requirements between assessment methods were compared using Welch's t test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 43 NB articles (777 participants) and 17 IAAO articles (186 participants) were included. In nonathletes, protein requirements were significantly higher by 36% with IAAO [mean: 0.88 g/kg/d; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.85, 0.90] than with NB (mean: 0.64 g/kg/d; 95% CI: 0.61, 0.68). In athletes, protein requirements were significantly higher by 27% with IAAO (mean: 1.61 g/kg/d; 95% CI: 1.44, 1.78) than with NB (mean: 1.27 g/kg/d; 95% CI: 1.06, 1.47). In nonathletes, IAAO values remained significantly higher than NB values across age and sex subgroups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The protein requirements calculated using the IAAO method were ∼30% higher than those obtained using the NB method. The quantitative findings of this study provide important information for scientific consideration of protein requirements. This trial was registered at PROSPERO as CRD42025636735.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16620,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Nutrition\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Nutrition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjnut.2025.08.036\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"NUTRITION & DIETETICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Nutrition","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjnut.2025.08.036","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:准确了解蛋白质需要量有助于预防因缺乏蛋白质而引起的健康风险。氮平衡法(NB)是估算蛋白质需氧量的标准方法,但其与指示剂氨基酸氧化法(IAAO)之间没有统计学上的比较,而指示剂氨基酸氧化法的研究越来越多。目的:通过荟萃分析,定量比较NB法和IAAO法的蛋白质需要量。方法:对利用NB或IAAO方法估算健康个体蛋白质需要量的研究进行综述。首先,系统地检索以前的综述,从参考文献中找出2012年以前的NB文章和2023年以前的IAAO文章。在每个综述的检索期之后发表的原创文章,直到2025年1月11日,使用PubMed和Ichushi-Web进行系统检索。通过对纳入文献和灰色文献的引文跟踪进行人工检索。本研究遵循PRISMA指南。采用Welch’st检验比较不同评估方法间蛋白质需要量的差异。结果:共纳入NB文献43篇(777名受试者),IAAO文献17篇(186名受试者)。在非运动员中,IAAO组的蛋白质需要量(平均:0.88 g/kg/day; 95%可信区间(CI): 0.85, 0.90)比NB组(平均:0.64 g/kg/day; 95% CI: 0.61, 0.68)显著高36%。在运动员中,IAAO组的蛋白质需要量(平均:1.61 g/kg/day; 95% CI: 1.44, 1.78)比NB组(平均:1.27 g/kg/day; 95% CI: 1.06, 1.47)显著高出27%。在非运动员中,跨年龄和性别亚组的IAAO值仍显著高于NB值。结论:IAAO法计算的蛋白质需要量比NB法计算的蛋白质需要量高约30%。本研究的定量结果为科学考虑蛋白质需求提供了重要信息。系统评价或荟萃分析的注册和注册编号:本研究在PROSPERO注册为CRD42025636735。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of Protein Requirements Based on the Nitrogen Balance and Indicator Amino Acid Oxidation Methods: An Umbrella Review and Meta-analysis.

Background: An accurate understanding of protein requirements helps prevent health risks caused by deficiency. No statistical comparison exists between the nitrogen balance (NB) method, the standard method for estimating protein requirements, and the indicator amino acid oxidation (IAAO) method, which has been increasingly studied.

Objectives: This study aimed to quantitatively compare the protein requirements of the NB and IAAO methods through meta-analyses.

Methods: Studies estimating protein requirements in healthy individuals using the NB or IAAO methods were reviewed. First, previous reviews were systematically searched to identify original NB articles up to 2012 and IAAO articles up to 2023 from their references. Original articles published after each review's search period, up to 11 January, 2025, were systematically searched using PubMed and Ichushi-Web. Manual searches were performed through citation tracking of included literature and gray literature. This study followed PRISMA guidelines. Differences in protein requirements between assessment methods were compared using Welch's t test.

Results: A total of 43 NB articles (777 participants) and 17 IAAO articles (186 participants) were included. In nonathletes, protein requirements were significantly higher by 36% with IAAO [mean: 0.88 g/kg/d; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.85, 0.90] than with NB (mean: 0.64 g/kg/d; 95% CI: 0.61, 0.68). In athletes, protein requirements were significantly higher by 27% with IAAO (mean: 1.61 g/kg/d; 95% CI: 1.44, 1.78) than with NB (mean: 1.27 g/kg/d; 95% CI: 1.06, 1.47). In nonathletes, IAAO values remained significantly higher than NB values across age and sex subgroups.

Conclusions: The protein requirements calculated using the IAAO method were ∼30% higher than those obtained using the NB method. The quantitative findings of this study provide important information for scientific consideration of protein requirements. This trial was registered at PROSPERO as CRD42025636735.

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
Journal of Nutrition
Journal of Nutrition 医学-营养学
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
4.80%
发文量
260
审稿时长
39 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Nutrition (JN/J Nutr) publishes peer-reviewed original research papers covering all aspects of experimental nutrition in humans and other animal species; special articles such as reviews and biographies of prominent nutrition scientists; and issues, opinions, and commentaries on controversial issues in nutrition. Supplements are frequently published to provide extended discussion of topics of special interest.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信