Evidence Hub

Resting Energy Expenditure Prediction Equations in the Pediatric Population: A Systematic Review

J. Fuentes-Servín, A. Avila-Nava, L. González-Salazar, O. Pérez-González, María Del Carmen Servín-Rodas, A. Serralde-Zúñiga, I. Medina-Vera, M. Guevara-Cruz

Frontiers in Pediatrics, 2021

17 participants · 30 citations

Abstract

Background and Aims: The determination of energy requirements is necessary to promote adequate growth and nutritional status in pediatric populations. Currently, several predictive equations have been designed and modified to estimate energy expenditure at rest. Our objectives were (1) to identify the equations designed for energy expenditure prediction and (2) to identify the anthropometric and demographic variables used in the design of the equations for pediatric patients who are healthy and have illness. Methods: A systematic search in the Medline/PubMed, EMBASE and LILACS databases for observational studies published up to January 2021 that reported the design of predictive equations to estimate basal or resting energy expenditure in pediatric populations was carried out. Studies were excluded if the study population included athletes, adult patients, or any patients taking medications that altered energy expenditure. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. Results: Of the 769 studies identified in the search, 39 met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Predictive equations were established for three pediatric populations: those who were healthy (n = 8), those who had overweight or obesity (n = 17), and those with a specific clinical situation (n = 14). In the healthy pediatric population, the FAO/WHO and Schofield equations had the highest R2 values, while in the population with obesity, the…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 17 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free