↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Predicting energy requirement with pedometer-determined physical-activity level in women with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
Title
Predicting energy requirement with pedometer-determined physical-activity level in women with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Published in
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, June 2015
DOI 10.2147/copd.s80616
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nighat Farooqi, Frode Slinde, Maine Carlsson, Lena Håglin, Thomas Sandström

Abstract

In clinical practice, in the absence of objective measures, simple methods to predict energy requirement in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) needs to be evaluated. The aim of the present study was to evaluate predicted energy requirement in females with COPD using pedometer-determined physical activity level (PAL) multiplied by resting metabolic rate (RMR) equations. Energy requirement was predicted in 18 women with COPD using pedometer-determined PAL multiplied by six different RMR equations (Harris-Benedict; Schofield; World Health Organization; Moore; Nordic Nutrition Recommendations; Nordenson). Total energy expenditure (TEE) was measured by the criterion method: doubly labeled water. The predicted energy requirement was compared with measured TEE using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman analyses. The energy requirement predicted by pedometer-determined PAL multiplied by six different RMR equations was within a reasonable accuracy (±10%) of the measured TEE for all equations except one (Nordenson equation). The ICC values between the criterion method (TEE) and predicted energy requirement were: Harris-Benedict, ICC =0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23-0.89; Schofield, ICC =0.71, 95% CI 0.21-0.89; World Health Organization, ICC =0.74, 95% CI 0.33-0.90; Moore, ICC =0.69, 95% CI 0.21-0.88; Nordic Nutrition Recommendations, ICC =0.70, 95% CI 0.17-0.89; and Nordenson, ICC =0.40, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.77. Bland-Altman plots revealed no systematic bias for predicted energy requirement except for Nordenson estimates. For clinical purposes, in absence of objective methods such as doubly labeled water method and motion sensors, energy requirement can be predicted using pedometer-determined PAL and common RMR equations. However, for assessment of nutritional status and for the purpose of giving nutritional treatment, a clinical judgment is important regarding when to accept a predicted energy requirement both at individual and group levels.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 18%
Researcher 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Professor 2 4%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 11 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 13 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 18%
Sports and Recreations 5 10%
Engineering 3 6%
Computer Science 2 4%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 13 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 June 2015.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#1,731
of 2,577 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,502
of 281,402 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#37
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,577 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 281,402 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.