Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Communication
  • Published:

Comparison between Medgem and Deltatrac resting metabolic rate measurements

European Journal of Clinical Nutrition volume 59, pages 1136–1141 (2005)Cite this article

Abstract

Objective:

The primary aims of this trial were to evaluate the reproducibility of a portable handheld calorimeter (Medgem) in a clinical population, and to compare its measures with a calorimeter in typical use with these patients.

Design:

Cross-sectional clinical validation study.

Setting:

Outpatient Clinical Research Center.

Subjects:

A total of 24 stable home nutrition support patients.

Interventions:

In random order three measures of resting metabolic rate (RMR) were taken after a 4-h fast, 15 min rest and 2-h abstention from exercise. Two measures were taken with the same Medgem (MG) and one with the traditional calorimeter (Deltatrac). Reproducibility of MG measures and their comparability to a Deltatrac measure were assessed by Bland–Altman analysis, with >±250 kcal/day established a priori as a clinically unacceptable error. In addition, disagreement between the two types of measures was defined as greater than 10% difference.

Results:

The mean difference between two MG measures was −6.8 kcal/day, with limits of agreement between 233 and −247 kcal/day and clinically acceptable. The mean difference between the Deltatrac and mean of two MG measures was −162 kcal/day, with limits of agreement between 577 and −253 kcal/day and clinically unacceptable. In all, 80% of the repeated MG RMR measures agreed within 10%, and the mean MG reading agreed with the Deltatrac in 60% of cases.

Conclusions:

RMR obtained using the MG calorimeter has an acceptable degree of reproducibility, and is acceptable to patients. The MG measures, however, are frequently lower than traditional measures and require further validation prior to application to practice in this vulnerable patient group.

Sponsorship:

This research was conducted in part with support from NIH Grant RR00040, and with loan of equipment and technical assistance from Healthetech.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bland JM & Altman DG (1986): Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 327, 307–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks GA, Butte NF, Rand WM, Flatt JP & Caballero B (2004): Chronicle of the Institute of Medicine physical activity Recommendation: how a physical activity recommendation came to be among dietary recommendations. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 79 (Supp l), S921–S930.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Weir JB (1949): New methods for calculating metabolic rate with special reference to protein metabolism. J. Physiol. 109, 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feurer I & Mullen J (1986): Bedside measurement of resting energy expenditure and respiratory quotient via indirect calorimetry. Nutr. Clin. Pract. 1, 43–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haugen HA, Melanson EL, Tran ZU, Kearney JT & Hill JO (2003): Variability of measured resting metabolic rate. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 78, 1141–1144.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Igawa S, Sakamaki M & Miyazaki M (2002): Examination of the reliability of the portable calorimeter. Clin. Exp. Pharm. Phys. 29, 13–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kashiwazaki H, Dejima Y & Suzuki T (1990): Influence of upper and lower thermoneutral room temperatures (20°C) on fasting and post-prandial resting metabolism under different outdoor temperatures. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 44, 405–413.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kinabo JL & Durnin JVGA (1990): Effect of meal frequency on the thermic effect of food in women. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 44, 389–395.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Matarese L (1997): Indirect calorimetry: technical aspects. J. Am. Diet. Assoc 97, 154–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClave SA & Snider HL (1992): Use of indirect calorimetry in clinical nutrition. Nutr. Clin. Pract. 7, 207–221.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nieman D, Trone G & Austin M (2003): A new handheld device for measuring resting metabolic rate and oxygen consumption. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 103, 588–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed GW & Hill JO (1996): Measuring the thermic effect of food. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 63, 164–169.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Reeves MM, Capra S, Bauer J, Davies PSW & Battistutta D (2005): Clinical accuracy of the MedGem™ indirect calorimeter for measuring resting energy expenditure in cancer patients. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 59, 603–610.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schols AMWJ, Schoffelen PFM, Ceulemans H, Wouters EFM & Saris WHM (1992): Measurement of resting energy expenditure in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in a clinical setting. J. Parent. Ent. Nutr. 16, 364–368.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Shetty PS, Henry CJK, Black AE & Prentice AM (1996a): Energy requirements of adults: an update on basal metabolic rates and physical activity levels. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 50 (Supp l), S11–S23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shetty PS, Henry CJK, Black AE & Prentice AM (1996b): Energy requirements of adults: an update on basal metabolic rates (BMRs) and physical activity levels (PALs). Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 50 (Supp l), S11–S23.

    Google Scholar 

  • St-Onge MP, Rubiano F, Jones A & Heymsfield SB (2003): A new hand-held indirect calorimeter to measure postprandial energy expenditure. Obes. Res. 12, 704–709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Takala J, Keinanen O, Vaisanen P & Kari A (1989): Measurement of gas exchange in intensive care: laboratory and clinical validation of a new device. Crit. Care Med. 17, 1041–1047.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tissot S, Delafosse B & Bertrans O (1995): Clinical validation of the Deltatrac monitoring system in mechnically ventilated patients. Intens. Care Med. 21, 149–153.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ventham JC & Reilly JJ (1999): Reproducibility of resting metabolic rate measurement in children. Br. J. Nutr. 81, 435–437.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Weissman C, Sardan A & Kemper M (1990): In vitro evaluation of a compact metabolic measurement instrument. J. Parent. Ent. Nutr. 14, 216–221.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was conducted in part with support from NIH Grant RR00040, and with loan of equipment and technical assistance from Healthetech.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Penn Nursing, School of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    C Compher

  2. University of Kansas Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    M Hise

  3. Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    A Sternberg

  4. University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    B P Kinosian

Authors
  1. C Compher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M Hise
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A Sternberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. B P Kinosian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C Compher.

Additional information

Pre'cis: The most widely used methods for measuring resting metabolic rate involve indirect calorimetry. This study evaluates the reproducibility of a portable handheld calorimeter and its comparability to a traditional indirect calorimeter in measures of resting metabolic rate in a home nutrition support clinical population.

Guarantor: C Compher.

Contributors: MH, AS and BPK read the final draft of the paper, collaborated in the data collection and share responsibility for the final research.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Compher, C., Hise, M., Sternberg, A. et al. Comparison between Medgem and Deltatrac resting metabolic rate measurements. Eur J Clin Nutr 59, 1136–1141 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602223

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602223

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links