EAL

EE: Steady State (2005)

Citation:

Branson RD. The measurement of energy expenditure: Instrumentation, practical considerations, and clinical application. Respiratory Care. 1990;35(7):640-658. (Note: Conference Proceedings: Not appraised but reveiwed reference list.)

Study Design:

Class:

A - Click here for explanation of classification scheme.

Quality Rating:

POSITIVE: See Quality Criteria Checklist below.

Research Purpose:

Inclusion Criteria:

Exclusion Criteria:

Description of Study Protocol:

Recruitment

Design

Blinding used (if applicable)

Intervention (if applicable)

Statistical Analysis

Data Collection Summary:

Timing of Measurements

Dependent Variables

Variable 1: brief description (how measured?)
Variable 2: brief description (how measured?)
etc

Independent Variables

Control Variables

Description of Actual Data Sample:

Initial N: (e.g., 731 (298 males, 433 females))

Attrition (final N):

Age:

Ethnicity:

Other relevant demographics:

Anthropometrics (e.g., were groups same or different on important measures)

Location:

Summary of Results:

Key Findings

Variables	Treatment Group Measures and confidence intervals	Control group Measures and confidence intervals	Statistical Significance of Group Difference
Dep var 1	Mean, CI. e.g., 4.5±2.2	Mean, CI. e.g., 1.5±2.0	Stat signif difference between groups e.g., p=.002
Dep var 2
etc

Other Findings

Author Conclusion:

Funding Source:

University/Hospital:

University of Cincinnati Medical Center

Reviewer Comments:

Quality Criteria Checklist: Review Articles
Relevance Questions
	1.	Will the answer if true, have a direct bearing on the health of patients?	Yes
	2.	Is the outcome or topic something that patients/clients/population groups would care about?	Yes
	3.	Is the problem addressed in the review one that is relevant to dietetics practice?	???
	4.	Will the information, if true, require a change in practice?	No

Validity Questions
	1.	Was the question for the review clearly focused and appropriate?	Yes
	2.	Was the search strategy used to locate relevant studies comprehensive? Were the databases searched and the search termsused described?	Yes
	3.	Were explicit methods used to select studies to include in the review? Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified andappropriate? Wereselectionmethods unbiased?	???
	4.	Was there an appraisal of the quality and validity of studies included in the review? Were appraisal methodsspecified,appropriate, andreproducible?	Yes
	5.	Were specific treatments/interventions/exposures described? Were treatments similar enough to be combined?	N/A
	6.	Was the outcome of interest clearly indicated? Were other potential harms and benefits considered?	Yes
	7.	Were processes for data abstraction, synthesis, and analysis described? Were they applied consistently acrossstudies and groups? Was thereappropriate use of qualitative and/or quantitative synthesis? Was variation in findings among studies analyzed? Were heterogeneity issued considered? If data from studies were aggregated for meta-analysis, was the procedure described?	Yes
	8.	Are the results clearly presented in narrative and/or quantitative terms? If summary statistics are used, are levels ofsignificance and/or confidence intervals included?	Yes
	9.	Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? Are limitations ofthe review identified anddiscussed?	Yes
	10.	Was bias due to the review's funding or sponsorship unlikely?	Yes