CI: Individual Predictive Equations (2006)
-
Assessment
In critically ill patients, what is the relationship between resting metabolic rate (RMR) and RMR predicted by the Fick equation?
-
Conclusion
Five studies comparing RMR and the Fick equation generally report little agreement between methods.
-
Grade: I
- Grade I means there is Good/Strong evidence supporting the statement;
- Grade II is Fair;
- Grade III is Limited/Weak;
- Grade IV is Expert Opinion Only;
- Grade V is Not Assignable.
- High (A) means we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect;
- Moderate (B) means we are moderately confident in the effect estimate;
- Low (C) means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited;
- Very Low (D) means we have very little confidence in the effect estimate.
- Ungraded means a grade is not assignable.
-
Evidence Summary: In critically ill patients, what is the relationship between resting metabolic rate (RMR) and RMR predicted by the Fick equation?
- Detail
- Quality Rating Summary
For a summary of the Quality Rating results, click here.
- Worksheets
- Brandi LS, Bertolini R, Santini L. Calculated and measured oxygen consumption in mechanically ventilated surgical patients in the early post-operative period. Eur J Anaesthesiol 1999;16(1):53-61.
- Epstein CD, Peerless JR, Martin JE, Malangoni MA. Comparison of methods of measurements of oxygen consumption in mechanically ventilated patients with multiple trauma: The Fick method vs. indirect calorimetry. Crit Care Med. 2000; 28(5): 1,363-1,369.
- Flancbaum L, Choban PS, Sambucco S, Verducci J, Burge JC. Comparison of indirect calorimetry, the Fick method, and prediction equations in estimating the energy requirements of critically ill patients. Am J Clin Nutr 1999; 69(3):461-6.
- Marson F, Martins MA, Coletto FA, Campos AD, Basile-Filho A. Correlation between oxygen consumption calculated using Fick's method and measured with indirect calorimetry in critically ill patients. Arq Bras Cardiol 2003;81:77-81.
- Ogawa AM, Shikora SA, Burke LM, Heetderks-Cox JE, Bergren CT, Muskat PC. The thermodilution technique for measuring resting energy expenditure does not agree with indirect calorimetry for the critically ill patient. JPEN 1998; 22: 347-351.
- Detail
-
Search Plan and Results: CI: Determination of RMR 2006
In critically ill patients, what is the relationship between resting metabolic rate (RMR) and RMR predicted by the Harris-Benedict equation (with stress and activity factors)?-
Conclusion
Thirteen studies comparing RMR and the Harris-Benedict equation, with stress and activity factors ranging from 1.1 to 1.6, may be biased and/or imprecise, by as much as 900 kcals or more, depending on the factors used.
-
Grade: I
- Grade I means there is Good/Strong evidence supporting the statement;
- Grade II is Fair;
- Grade III is Limited/Weak;
- Grade IV is Expert Opinion Only;
- Grade V is Not Assignable.
- High (A) means we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect;
- Moderate (B) means we are moderately confident in the effect estimate;
- Low (C) means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited;
- Very Low (D) means we have very little confidence in the effect estimate.
- Ungraded means a grade is not assignable.
-
Evidence Summary: In critically ill patients, what is the relationship between resting metabolic rate (RMR) and RMR predicted by the Harris-Benedict equation (with stress and activity factors)?
- Detail
- Quality Rating Summary
For a summary of the Quality Rating results, click here.
- Worksheets
- Alexander E, Susla GM, Burstein AH, Brown DT, Ognibene FP. Retrospective evaluation of commonly used equations to predict energy expenditure in mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients. Pharmacotherapy. 2004; 24(12): 1,659-1,667.
- Barak N, Wall-Alonso E, Sitrin MD. Evaluation of stress factors and body weight adjustments currently used to estimate energy expenditure in hospitalized patients. JPEN 2002; 26(4):231-8.
- Brandi LS, Santini L, Bertolini R, Malacarne P, Casagli S, Baraglia AM. Energy expenditure and severity of injury and illness indices in multiple trauma patients. Crit Care Med 1999;27(12):2684-9.
- Casati A, Colombo S, Leggieri C, Muttini S, Capocasa T, Gallioli G. Measured versus calculated energy expenditure in pressure support ventilated ICU patients. Minerva Anestesiol. 1996; 62 (5): 165-170.
- Cheng CH, Chen CH, Wong Y, Lee BJ, Kan MN, Huang YC. Measured versus estimated energy expenditure in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. Clin Nutr. 2002; 21 (2): 165-172.
- Cutts ME, Dowdy RP, Ellersieck MR, Edes TE. Predicting energy needs in ventilator-dependent critically ill patients: effect of adjusting weight for edema or adiposity. Am J Clin Nutr 1997;66:1250-6.
- Dickerson RN, Gervasio JM, Riley ML, Murrell JE, Hickerson WL, Kudsk KA, Brown RO. Accuracy of predictive methods to estimate resting energy expenditure of thermally-injured patients. JPEN 2002;26(1):17-29.
- Donaldson-Andersen J, Fitzsimmons L. Metabolic requirements of the critically ill, mechanically ventilated trauma patient: measured versus predicted energy expenditure. Nutr Clin Pract 1998;13(1):25-31.
- Faisy C, Guerot E, Diehl JL, Labrousse J, Fagon JY. Assessment of resting energy expenditure in mechanically ventilated patients. Am J Clin Nutr. 2003; 78: 241-249.
- Ireton-Jones C, Jones JD. Improved equations for predicting energy expenditure in patients: the Ireton-Jones equations. Nutr Clin Pract 2002;17(1):29-31.
- Jansen MMPM, Heymer F, Leusink JA, de Boer A. The quality of nutrition at an intensive care unit. Nutrition Research 2002;22(4):411-422.
- MacDonald A, Hildebrandt L. Comparison of formulaic equations to determine energy expenditure in the critically ill patient. Nutrition 2003;19(3):233-9.
- O'Leary-Kelley CM, Puntillo KA, Barr J, Stotts N, Douglas MK. Nutritional adequacy in patients receiving mechanical ventilation who are fed enterally. Am J Crit Care 2005; 14(3):222-31.
- Detail
-
Search Plan and Results: CI: Determination of RMR 2006
In critically ill patients, what is the relationship between resting metabolic rate (RMR) and RMR predicted by the Harris-Benedict equation (without adjustments)?-
Conclusion
Thirteen studies comparing RMR and the Harris-Benedict equation (without adjustments) generally report an underestimation of energy needs in the critically ill population, by as much as 1000 kcals or more.
-
Grade: I
- Grade I means there is Good/Strong evidence supporting the statement;
- Grade II is Fair;
- Grade III is Limited/Weak;
- Grade IV is Expert Opinion Only;
- Grade V is Not Assignable.
- High (A) means we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect;
- Moderate (B) means we are moderately confident in the effect estimate;
- Low (C) means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited;
- Very Low (D) means we have very little confidence in the effect estimate.
- Ungraded means a grade is not assignable.
-
Evidence Summary: In critically ill patients, what is the relationship between resting metabolic rate (RMR) and RMR predicted by the Harris-Benedict equation (without adjustments)?
- Detail
- Quality Rating Summary
For a summary of the Quality Rating results, click here.
- Worksheets
- Ahmad A, Duerksen DR, Munroe S, Bistrian BR. An evaluation of resting energy expenditure in hospitalized, severely underweight patients. Nutrition 1999;15(5):384-8.
- Alexander E, Susla GM, Burstein AH, Brown DT, Ognibene FP. Retrospective evaluation of commonly used equations to predict energy expenditure in mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients. Pharmacotherapy. 2004; 24(12): 1,659-1,667.
- Brandi LS, Santini L, Bertolini R, Malacarne P, Casagli S, Baraglia AM. Energy expenditure and severity of injury and illness indices in multiple trauma patients. Crit Care Med 1999;27(12):2684-9.
- Campbell CG, Zander E, Thorland W. Predicted vs measured energy expenditure in critically ill, underweight patients. Nutr Clin Pract 2005;20(2):276-80.
- Cheng CH, Chen CH, Wong Y, Lee BJ, Kan MN, Huang YC. Measured versus estimated energy expenditure in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. Clin Nutr. 2002; 21 (2): 165-172.
- Compher C, Cato R, Bader J, Kinosian B. Harris-Benedict equations do not adequately predict energy requirements in elderly hospitalized African Americans. J National Med Assoc 2004;96(2):209-214.
- Dickerson RN, Gervasio JM, Riley ML, Murrell JE, Hickerson WL, Kudsk KA, Brown RO. Accuracy of predictive methods to estimate resting energy expenditure of thermally-injured patients. JPEN 2002;26(1):17-29.
- Donaldson-Andersen J, Fitzsimmons L. Metabolic requirements of the critically ill, mechanically ventilated trauma patient: measured versus predicted energy expenditure. Nutr Clin Pract 1998;13(1):25-31.
- Faisy C, Guerot E, Diehl JL, Labrousse J, Fagon JY. Assessment of resting energy expenditure in mechanically ventilated patients. Am J Clin Nutr. 2003; 78: 241-249.
- Flancbaum L, Choban PS, Sambucco S, Verducci J, Burge JC. Comparison of indirect calorimetry, the Fick method, and prediction equations in estimating the energy requirements of critically ill patients. Am J Clin Nutr 1999; 69(3):461-6.
- Frankenfield D, Smith JS, Cooney RN. Validation of 2 approaches to predicting resting metabolic rate in critically ill patients. JPEN 2004;28(4):259-64.
- Ireton-Jones C. Comparison of the metabolic response to burn injury in obese and nonobese patients. J Burn Care Rehabil 1997;18(1 Pt 1):82-5.
- MacDonald A, Hildebrandt L. Comparison of formulaic equations to determine energy expenditure in the critically ill patient. Nutrition 2003;19(3):233-9.
- Detail
-
Search Plan and Results: CI: Determination of RMR 2006
In critically ill patients, what is the relationship between resting metabolic rate (RMR) and RMR predicted by the Ireton-Jones 1992 equations?-
Conclusion
Seven studies comparing RMR and the Ireton-Jones, 1992 equations report similar mean values, however, for an individual, energy predictions may be different by as much as 500 kcals (52% of non-obese subjects predicted within 10% of RMR). Further research regarding the accuracy of the Ireton-Jones, 1992 equation is warranted.
-
Grade: III
- Grade I means there is Good/Strong evidence supporting the statement;
- Grade II is Fair;
- Grade III is Limited/Weak;
- Grade IV is Expert Opinion Only;
- Grade V is Not Assignable.
- High (A) means we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect;
- Moderate (B) means we are moderately confident in the effect estimate;
- Low (C) means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited;
- Very Low (D) means we have very little confidence in the effect estimate.
- Ungraded means a grade is not assignable.
-
Evidence Summary: In critically ill patients, what is the relationship between resting metabolic rate (RMR) and RMR predicted by the Ireton-Jones 1992 equations?
- Detail
- Quality Rating Summary
For a summary of the Quality Rating results, click here.
- Worksheets
- Campbell CG, Zander E, Thorland W. Predicted vs measured energy expenditure in critically ill, underweight patients. Nutr Clin Pract 2005;20(2):276-80.
- Cheng CH, Chen CH, Wong Y, Lee BJ, Kan MN, Huang YC. Measured versus estimated energy expenditure in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. Clin Nutr. 2002; 21 (2): 165-172.
- Dickerson RN, Gervasio JM, Riley ML, Murrell JE, Hickerson WL, Kudsk KA, Brown RO. Accuracy of predictive methods to estimate resting energy expenditure of thermally-injured patients. JPEN 2002;26(1):17-29.
- Flancbaum L, Choban PS, Sambucco S, Verducci J, Burge JC. Comparison of indirect calorimetry, the Fick method, and prediction equations in estimating the energy requirements of critically ill patients. Am J Clin Nutr 1999; 69(3):461-6.
- Frankenfield D, Smith JS, Cooney RN. Validation of 2 approaches to predicting resting metabolic rate in critically ill patients. JPEN 2004;28(4):259-64.
- Ireton-Jones C. Comparison of the metabolic response to burn injury in obese and nonobese patients. J Burn Care Rehabil 1997;18(1 Pt 1):82-5.
- MacDonald A, Hildebrandt L. Comparison of formulaic equations to determine energy expenditure in the critically ill patient. Nutrition 2003;19(3):233-9.
- Detail
-
Search Plan and Results: CI: Determination of RMR 2006
In critically ill patients, what is the relationship between resting metabolic rate (RMR) and RMR predicted by the Ireton-Jones 1997 equations?-
Conclusion
Three studies comparing RMR and the updated Ireton-Jones, 1997 equations report similar mean values, however, only 36% of subjects were predicted within 10% of RMR. Further research in the critically ill population is needed regarding the Ireton-Jones, 1997 equations.
-
Grade: II
- Grade I means there is Good/Strong evidence supporting the statement;
- Grade II is Fair;
- Grade III is Limited/Weak;
- Grade IV is Expert Opinion Only;
- Grade V is Not Assignable.
- High (A) means we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect;
- Moderate (B) means we are moderately confident in the effect estimate;
- Low (C) means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited;
- Very Low (D) means we have very little confidence in the effect estimate.
- Ungraded means a grade is not assignable.
-
Evidence Summary: In critically ill patients, what is the relationship between resting metabolic rate (RMR) and RMR predicted by the Ireton-Jones 1997 equations?
- Detail
- Quality Rating Summary
For a summary of the Quality Rating results, click here.
- Worksheets
- Alexander E, Susla GM, Burstein AH, Brown DT, Ognibene FP. Retrospective evaluation of commonly used equations to predict energy expenditure in mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients. Pharmacotherapy. 2004; 24(12): 1,659-1,667.
- Frankenfield D, Smith JS, Cooney RN. Validation of 2 approaches to predicting resting metabolic rate in critically ill patients. JPEN 2004;28(4):259-64.
- Ireton-Jones C, Jones JD. Improved equations for predicting energy expenditure in patients: the Ireton-Jones equations. Nutr Clin Pract 2002;17(1):29-31.
- Detail
-
Search Plan and Results: CI: Determination of RMR 2006
In critically ill patients, what is the relationship between resting metabolic rate (RMR) and RMR predicted by the Mifflin-St. Jeor equation?-
Conclusion
At the current time, the Mifflin-St. Jeor equation has not been adequately researched in the critically ill population. Further research in the critically ill population is needed regarding the Mifflin-St. Jeor equation.
-
Grade: V
- Grade I means there is Good/Strong evidence supporting the statement;
- Grade II is Fair;
- Grade III is Limited/Weak;
- Grade IV is Expert Opinion Only;
- Grade V is Not Assignable.
- High (A) means we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect;
- Moderate (B) means we are moderately confident in the effect estimate;
- Low (C) means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited;
- Very Low (D) means we have very little confidence in the effect estimate.
- Ungraded means a grade is not assignable.
-
Evidence Summary: In critically ill patients, what is the relationship between resting metabolic rate (RMR) and RMR predicted by the Mifflin-St. Jeor equation?
- Detail
- Quality Rating Summary
For a summary of the Quality Rating results, click here.
- Worksheets
- Detail
-
Search Plan and Results: CI: Determination of RMR 2006
In critically ill patients, what is the relationship between resting metabolic rate (RMR) and RMR predicted by the Penn State equation?-
Conclusion
Two studies comparing RMR and the Penn State equation report adequate precision (79% of non-obese subjects predicted within 10% of RMR). Further research in the critically ill population is needed regarding the Penn State equation.
-
Grade: III
- Grade I means there is Good/Strong evidence supporting the statement;
- Grade II is Fair;
- Grade III is Limited/Weak;
- Grade IV is Expert Opinion Only;
- Grade V is Not Assignable.
- High (A) means we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect;
- Moderate (B) means we are moderately confident in the effect estimate;
- Low (C) means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited;
- Very Low (D) means we have very little confidence in the effect estimate.
- Ungraded means a grade is not assignable.
-
Evidence Summary: In critically ill patients, what is the relationship between resting metabolic rate (RMR) and RMR predicted by the Penn State equation?
- Detail
- Quality Rating Summary
For a summary of the Quality Rating results, click here.
- Worksheets
- Frankenfield D, Smith JS, Cooney RN. Validation of 2 approaches to predicting resting metabolic rate in critically ill patients. JPEN 2004;28(4):259-64.
- MacDonald A, Hildebrandt L. Comparison of formulaic equations to determine energy expenditure in the critically ill patient. Nutrition 2003;19(3):233-9.
- Detail
-
Search Plan and Results: CI: Determination of RMR 2006
In critically ill patients, what is the relationship between resting metabolic rate (RMR) and RMR predicted by the Swinamer equation?-
Conclusion
One study comparing RMR and the Swinamer equation have reported that 55% of non-obese subjects were predicted within 10% of RMR. Further research in the critically ill population is needed regarding the Swinamer equation.
-
Grade: III
- Grade I means there is Good/Strong evidence supporting the statement;
- Grade II is Fair;
- Grade III is Limited/Weak;
- Grade IV is Expert Opinion Only;
- Grade V is Not Assignable.
- High (A) means we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect;
- Moderate (B) means we are moderately confident in the effect estimate;
- Low (C) means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited;
- Very Low (D) means we have very little confidence in the effect estimate.
- Ungraded means a grade is not assignable.
-
Evidence Summary: In critically ill patients, what is the relationship between resting metabolic rate (RMR) and RMR predicted by the Swinamer equation?
- Detail
- Quality Rating Summary
For a summary of the Quality Rating results, click here.
- Worksheets
- Detail
-
Search Plan and Results: CI: Determination of RMR 2006
-
Conclusion