Sepideh Kaviani1, Dale A Schoeller2, Eric Ravussin3, Edward L Melanson4, Sarah T Henes5, Lara R Dugas6, Ronald E Dechert7, George Mitri7, Paul F M Schoffelen8, Pim Gubbels9, Asa Tornberg10, Stephen Garland10, Marco Akkermans11, Jamie A Cooper1. 1. Department of Foods and Nutrition, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA. 2. Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 3. Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA. 4. Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism, & Diabetes, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Denver, Colorado, USA. 5. Department of Nutrition, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. 6. Public Health Sciences, Loyola University, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 7. Pediatric Respiratory Care, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 8. Department of Human Biology & Movement Sciences, NUTRIM School for Nutrition, Toxicology & Metabolism, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands. 9. Topsport Expertise & Innovation Centre, Sittard, the Netherlands. 10. Department of Health Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden. 11. Center of Expertise for Chronic Organ Failure, Horn, the Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several indirect calorimetry (IC) instruments are commercially available, but comparative validity and reliability data are lacking. Existing data are limited by inconsistencies in protocols, subject characteristics, or single-instrument validation comparisons. The aim of this study was to compare accuracy and reliability of metabolic carts using methanol combustion as the cross-laboratory criterion. METHODS: Eight 20-minute methanol burn trials were completed on 12 metabolic carts. Respiratory exchange ratio (RER) and percent O2 and CO2 recovery were calculated. RESULTS: For accuracy, 1 Omnical, Cosmed Quark CPET (Cosmed), and both Parvos (Parvo Medics trueOne 2400) measured all 3 variables within 2% of the true value; both DeltaTracs and the Vmax Encore System (Vmax) showed similar accuracy in measuring 1 or 2, but not all, variables. For reliability, 8 instruments were shown to be reliable, with the 2 Omnicals ranking best (coefficient of variation [CV] < 1.26%). Both Cosmeds, Parvos, DeltaTracs, 1 Jaeger Oxycon Pro (Oxycon), Max-II Metabolic Systems (Max-II), and Vmax were reliable for at least 1 variable (CV ≤ 3%). For multiple regression, humidity and amount of combusted methanol were significant predictors of RER (R2 = 0.33, P < .001). Temperature and amount of burned methanol were significant predictors of O2 recovery (R2 = 0.18, P < .001); only humidity was a predictor for CO2 recovery (R2 = 0.15, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Omnical, Parvo, Cosmed, and DeltaTrac had greater accuracy and reliability. The small number of instruments tested and expected differences in gas calibration variability limits the generalizability of conclusions. Finally, humidity and temperature could be modified in the laboratory to optimize IC conditions.
BACKGROUND: Several indirect calorimetry (IC) instruments are commercially available, but comparative validity and reliability data are lacking. Existing data are limited by inconsistencies in protocols, subject characteristics, or single-instrument validation comparisons. The aim of this study was to compare accuracy and reliability of metabolic carts using methanol combustion as the cross-laboratory criterion. METHODS: Eight 20-minute methanol burn trials were completed on 12 metabolic carts. Respiratory exchange ratio (RER) and percent O2 and CO2 recovery were calculated. RESULTS: For accuracy, 1 Omnical, Cosmed Quark CPET (Cosmed), and both Parvos (Parvo Medics trueOne 2400) measured all 3 variables within 2% of the true value; both DeltaTracs and the Vmax Encore System (Vmax) showed similar accuracy in measuring 1 or 2, but not all, variables. For reliability, 8 instruments were shown to be reliable, with the 2 Omnicals ranking best (coefficient of variation [CV] < 1.26%). Both Cosmeds, Parvos, DeltaTracs, 1 Jaeger Oxycon Pro (Oxycon), Max-II Metabolic Systems (Max-II), and Vmax were reliable for at least 1 variable (CV ≤ 3%). For multiple regression, humidity and amount of combusted methanol were significant predictors of RER (R2 = 0.33, P < .001). Temperature and amount of burned methanol were significant predictors of O2 recovery (R2 = 0.18, P < .001); only humidity was a predictor for CO2 recovery (R2 = 0.15, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Omnical, Parvo, Cosmed, and DeltaTrac had greater accuracy and reliability. The small number of instruments tested and expected differences in gas calibration variability limits the generalizability of conclusions. Finally, humidity and temperature could be modified in the laboratory to optimize IC conditions.
Authors: D S Alam; P J M Hulshof; D Roordink; M Meltzer; M Yunus; M A Salam; J M A van Raaij Journal: Eur J Clin Nutr Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 4.016
Authors: Christopher J Gore; Robert J Clark; Nicholas J Shipp; Grant E Van Der Ploeg; Robert T Withers Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Juan M A Alcantara; Guillermo Sanchez-Delgado; Lucas Jurado-Fasoli; Jose E Galgani; Idoia Labayen; Jonatan R Ruiz Journal: Eur J Nutr Date: 2022-08-25 Impact factor: 4.865
Authors: Emmanuel Quaye; Shaji Chacko; Stephanie T Chung; Robert J Brychta; Kong Y Chen; Rebecca J Brown Journal: Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab Date: 2021-10-25 Impact factor: 4.310
Authors: Adam van Casteren; Jonathan R Codd; Kornelius Kupczik; Guy Plasqui; William I Sellers; Amanda G Henry Journal: Sci Adv Date: 2022-08-17 Impact factor: 14.957
Authors: Suey S Y Yeung; Marijke C Trappenburg; Carel G M Meskers; Andrea B Maier; Esmee M Reijnierse Journal: Br J Nutr Date: 2020-03-16 Impact factor: 3.718