The browser you are using is not supported by this website. All versions of Internet Explorer are no longer supported, either by us or Microsoft (read more here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/windows/end-of-ie-support).

Please use a modern browser to fully experience our website, such as the newest versions of Edge, Chrome, Firefox or Safari etc.

Default user image.

Åsa Tornberg

Associate professor

Default user image.

Determining the Accuracy and Reliability of Indirect Calorimeters Utilizing the Methanol Combustion Technique

Author

  • Sepideh Kaviani
  • Dale A. Schoeller
  • Eric Ravussin
  • Edward L. Melanson
  • Sarah T. Henes
  • Lara R. Dugas
  • Ronald E. Dechert
  • George Mitri
  • Paul F.M. Schoffelen
  • Pim Gubbels
  • Asa Tornberg
  • Stephen Garland
  • Marco Akkermans
  • Jamie A. Cooper

Summary, in English

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.

Department/s

  • Department of Health Sciences

Publishing year

2018-04-01

Language

English

Pages

206-216

Publication/Series

Nutrition in Clinical Practice

Volume

33

Issue

2

Document type

Journal article

Publisher

Wiley-Blackwell

Topic

  • Medical Laboratory and Measurements Technologies

Keywords

  • accuracy
  • energy metabolism
  • indirect calorimetry
  • metabolic cart
  • methanol
  • reliability

Status

Published

ISBN/ISSN/Other

  • ISSN: 0884-5336