| 1. |
- Kaviani, Sepideh, et al.
(författare)
-
Determining the Accuracy and Reliability of Indirect Calorimeters Utilizing the Methanol Combustion Technique
- 2017
-
Ingår i: The FASEB Journal. - 0892-6638 .- 1530-6860. ; 31:S1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- ObjectiveThere are several indirect calorimetry (IC) instruments commercially available but validity and reliability data is lacking. Site-to-site inconsistencies in protocols and subject characteristics, and comparisons to a “gold standard” instrument or method which may no longer be accurate enough, have put restraints on drawing conclusions about instruments' performance.PurposeTo compare the accuracy and reliability of different metabolic carts using the methanol combustion technique as the criterion measure.MethodsA total of eight, 20-minute methanol burn trials were completed on 12 metabolic carts (2 Cosmed Quark CPET, 2 DeltaTrac II, 2 Parvo Medics TrueOne 2400, 2 Iaeger Oxycon Pros, 2 Omnicals, a Vmax Encore, and a Max-II Metabolic System) at 11 international study sites. Methanol tests were performed at 0700, 1000, 1300, and 1600 hours on 2 consecutive days. Respiratory Exchange Ratio (RER) and percent (%) recovery of O2 and CO2 were calculated after each test.ResultsAccuracy – 1 Omnical, Cosmed, and Parvo were accurate in measuring RER and % recovery O2, while 1 DeltaTrac was also accurate for % recovery O2. The same Cosmed and Parvo, and the other DeltaTrac were accurate in measuring % recovery CO2. Reliability – 8 instruments were shown to be reliable with the two Omnicals ranking best based on the smallest coefficient of variation (CV) (all CV(s) 1.26%). Both Cosmeds, Parvos, DeltaTracs and 1 Vmax were the reliable instruments for at least one variable (CV(s) 3%). Multiple Regression– Humidity, amount of methanol combusted, and temperature were tested as predictors of IC outcomes. Humidity and amount of combusted methanol were significant predictors of RER (F (2, 60) =10.91, p<0.001, R2=0.33). Temperature and amount of burned methanol were significant predictors of % recovery O2 (F (2, 60) =8.32, p<0.001, R2=0.18) while only humidity was a predictor for % recovery CO2 (F (1, 61) =21.10, p<0.001, R2=0.15).ConclusionOmnical, Cosmed, and Parvo showed superior accuracy and reliability; however, accuracy was only found at one of two study sites. Exogenous factors such as humidity and temperature may be influencing instrument performance and could be modified in the lab to optimize IC conditions.
|
|
