دورية أكاديمية
Validation of SenseWear Armband and ActiHeart monitors for assessments of daily energy expenditure in free-living women with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
| العنوان: | Validation of SenseWear Armband and ActiHeart monitors for assessments of daily energy expenditure in free-living women with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease |
|---|---|
| المؤلفون: | Farooqi, Nighat, Slinde, Frode, Håglin, Lena, Sandström, Thomas |
| بيانات النشر: | Umeå universitet, Lungmedicin Umeå universitet, Allmänmedicin The American Physiological Society |
| سنة النشر: | 2013 |
| المجموعة: | Umeå University: Publications (DiVA) |
| مصطلحات موضوعية: | Energy expenditure, validity of ActiHeart, validity of SenseWear Armband, women with COPD, Nutrition and Dietetics, Näringslära |
| الوصف: | To provide individually adapted nutritional support to patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), objective and reliable methods must be used to assess patient energy requirements. The aim of this study was to validate the use of SenseWear Armband (SWA) and ActiHeart (AH) monitors for assessing total daily energy expenditure (TEE) and activity energy expenditure (AEE) and compare these techniques with the doubly labeled water (DLW) method in free‐living women with COPD. TEE and AEE were measured in 19 women with COPD for 14 days using SWAs with software version 5.1 (TEESWA5, AEESWA5) or 6.1 (TEESWA6, AEESWA6) and AH monitors (TEEAH, AEEAH), using DLW (TEEDLW) as the criterion method. The three methods were compared using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland–Altman analyses. The mean TEE did not significantly differ between the DLW and SWA5.1 methods (−21 ± 726 kJ/day; P = 0.9), but it did significantly differ between the DLW and SWA6.1 (709 ± 667 kJ/day) (P < 0.001) and the DLW and AH methods (709 ± 786 kJ/day) (P < 0.001). Strong agreement was observed between the DLW and TEESWA5 methods (ICC = 0.76; 95% CI 0.47–0.90), with moderate agreements between the DLW and TEESWA6 (ICC = 0.66; 95% CI 0.02–0.88) and the DLW and TEEAH methods (ICC = 0.61; 95% CI 0.05–0.85). Compared with the DLW method, the SWA5.1 underestimated AEE by 12% (P = 0.03), whereas the SWA6.1 and AH monitors underestimated AEE by 35% (P < 0.001). Bland–Altman plots revealed no systematic bias for TEE or AEE. The SWA5.1 can reliably assess TEE in women with COPD. However, the SWA6.1 and AH monitors underestimate TEE. The SWA and AH monitors underestimate AEE. |
| نوع الوثيقة: | article in journal/newspaper |
| وصف الملف: | application/pdf |
| اللغة: | English |
| العلاقة: | Physiological Reports, 2013, 1:6; http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-121342Test; PMID 24400152; Scopus 2-s2.0-85008953492 |
| DOI: | 10.1002/phy2.150 |
| الإتاحة: | https://doi.org/10.1002/phy2.150Test http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-121342Test |
| حقوق: | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
| رقم الانضمام: | edsbas.74790A6F |
| قاعدة البيانات: | BASE |
| DOI: | 10.1002/phy2.150 |
|---|