ArticleBMC gastroenterology2025
Resting energy expenditure in adults with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus: comparison between measured and predicted values.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIndirect calorimetry (IC) is the gold standard for determining energy requirements. Resting energy expenditure (REE) equations could noninvasively estimate energy requirements in healthy individuals. Whether the published equations could accurately predict the REE of adults with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) remains unclear. Here, we aimed to investigate the accuracy of predicted REE in patients with NAFLD and T2DM using different equations.
methodsREE was measured using IC and compared with ten predictive equations in 88 adult patients aged 30-53 years. The agreement between the measured REE with IC and REE, as predicted by equations, was assessed using the Bland-Altman method.
resultsThe analysis showed that the FAO/WHO/UNU (version using weight) equation had the smallest average bias (10.2 kcal/d; 95% confidence interval [CI], -57.4 to 78) and the highest accuracy (46.5%); meanwhile, the Thumb equation had the greatest average bias (-402.2 kcal/d; 95% CI, -477.3 to -327.1) and the lowest accuracy (20.4%). The highest values of overestimating and underestimating were related to the Thumb and Owen equations, respectively. The 95% limits of agreement were found to be smaller in the equations by Muller (version using fat-free mass), compared to others.
conclusionThe FAO/WHO/UNU (weight) equation, thus, performed the best in predicting energy expenditure when applied to patients with NAFLD and T2DM. However, all the prediction equations provided REE estimates within 10% of the measured ones in less than 50% of the cases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.