Estimates of resting energy expenditure using predictive equations in adults with severe burns: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many equations to estimate the resting energy expenditure (REE) of patients with burns are currently available, but which of them provides the best guide to optimize nutrition support is controversial. This review examined the bias and precision of commonly used equations in patients with severe burns. METHODS: A systematic search of the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was undertaken on June 1, 2023, to identify studies comparing predicted REE (using equations) with measured REE (by indirect calorimetry [IC]) in adults with severe burns. Meta-analyses of bias and calculations of precisions were performed in each predictive equation, respectively. RESULTS: Nine eligible studies and 12 eligible equations were included. Among the equations, the Toronto equation had the lowest bias (26.1 kcal/day; 95% CI, -417.0 to 469.2), followed by the Harris-Benedict equation × 1.5 (1.5HB) and the Milner equation. The Ireton-Jones equation (303.4 kcal/day; 95% CI, 224.5-382.3) acceptably overestimated the REE. The accuracy of all of the equations was <50%. The Ireton-Jones equation had the relatively highest precision (41.2%), followed by the 1.5HB equation (37.0%) and the Toronto equation (34.7%). CONCLUSION: For adult patients with severe burns, all of the commonly used equations for the prediction of REE are inaccurate. It is recommended to use IC for accurate REE measurements and to use the Toronto equation, 1.5HB equation, or Ireton-Jones equation as a reference when IC is not available. Further studies are needed to propose more accurate REE predictive models.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".