Evidence Hub

Adequacy of basal metabolic rate prediction equations in individuals with severe obesity: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Tatiana Almeida de Moraes Campos, Virginia Gaissionok Mariz, Alessandra da Rocha Pinheiro Mulder, Cíntia Chaves Curioni, Flávia Fioruci Bezerra

Obesity Reviews, 2024

20 participants · 10 citations

Abstract

Summary The determination of energy requirements in clinical practice is based on basal metabolic rate (BMR), frequently predicted by equations that may not be suitable for individuals with severe obesity. This systematic review and meta‐analysis examined the accuracy and precision of BMR prediction equations in adults with severe obesity. Four databases were searched in March 2021 and updated in May 2023. Eligible studies compared BMR prediction equations with BMR measured by indirect calorimetry. Forty studies (age: 28–55 years, BMI: 40.0–62.4 kg/m2) were included, most of them with a high risk of bias. Studies reporting bias (difference between estimated and measured BMR) were included in the meta‐analysis (n = 20). Six equations were meta‐analyzed: Harris & Benedict (1919); WHO (weight) (1985); Owen (1986); Mifflin (1990); Bernstein (1983); and Cunningham (1980). The most accurate and precise equations in the overall analysis were WHO (−12.44 kcal/d; 95%CI: −81.4; 56.5 kcal/d) and Harris & Benedict (−18.9 kcal/d; 95%CI ‐73.2; 35.2 kcal/d). All the other equations tended to underestimate BMR. Harris & Benedict and WHO were the equations with higher accuracy and precision in predicting BMR in individuals with severe obesity. Additional analyses suggested that equations may perform differently according to obesity BMI ranges, which warrants further investigation.

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: 20 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