Background & aims: Individual energy requirements of overweight and obese adults can often not be measured by indirect calorimetry, mainly due to the time-consuming procedure and the high costs. To analyze which resting energy expenditure (REE) predictive equation is the best alternative for indirect calorimetry in Belgian normal weight to morbid obese women.Methods: Predictive equations were included when based on weight, height, gender, age, fat free mass and fat mass. REE was measured with indirect calorimetry. Accuracy of equations was evaluated by the percentage of subjects predicted within 10% of REE measured, the root mean squared prediction error (RMSE) and the mean percentage difference (bias) between predicted and measured REE.Results: Twenty-seven predictive equations (of which 9 based on FFM) were included. Validation was based on 536 F (18–71 year). Most accurate and precise for the Belgian women were the Huang, Siervo, Muller (FFM), Harris–Benedict (HB), and the Mifflin equation with 71%, 71%, 70%, 69%, and 68% accurate predictions, respectively; bias −1.7, −0.5, +1.1, +2.2, and −1.8%, RMSE 168, 170, 163, 167, and 173 kcal/d. The equations of HB and Mifflin are most widely used in clinical practice and both provide accurate predictions across a wide range of BMI groups. In an already overweight group the underpredicting Mifflin equation might be preferred. Above BMI 45 kg/m2, the Siervo equation performed best, while the FAO/WHO/UNU or Schofield equation should not be used in this extremely obese group.Conclusions: In Belgian women, the original Harris–Benedict or the Mifflin equation is a reliable tool to predict REE across a wide variety of body weight (BMI 18.5–50). Estimations for the BMI range between 30 and 40 kg/m2, however, should be improved.
BACKGROUND: Hospital stays are associated with high levels of sedentary behavior and physical inactivity. To objectively investigate physical behavior of hospitalized patients, these is a need for valid measurement instruments. The aim of this study was to assess the criterion validity of three accelerometers to measure lying, sitting, standing and walking. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was performed in a university hospital. Participants carried out several mobility tasks according to a structured protocol while wearing three accelerometers (ActiGraph GT9X Link, Activ8 Professional and Dynaport MoveMonitor). The participants were guided through the protocol by a test leader and were recorded on video to serve as reference. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) were determined for the categories lying, sitting, standing and walking. RESULTS: In total 12 subjects were included with a mean age of 49.5 (SD 21.5) years and a mean body mass index of 23.8 kg/m2 (SD 2.4). The ActiGraph GT9X Link showed an excellent sensitivity (90%) and PPV (98%) for walking, but a poor sensitivity for sitting and standing (57% and 53%), and a poor PPV (43%) for sitting. The Activ8 Professional showed an excellent sensitivity for sitting and walking (95% and 93%), excellent PPV (98%) for walking, but no sensitivity (0%) and PPV (0%) for lying. The Dynaport MoveMonitor showed an excellent sensitivity for sitting (94%), excellent PPV for lying and walking (100% and 99%), but a poor sensitivity (13%) and PPV (19%) for standing. CONCLUSIONS: The validity outcomes for the categories lying, sitting, standing and walking vary between the investigated accelerometers. All three accelerometers scored good to excellent in identifying walking. None of the accelerometers were able to identify all categories validly.
We investigated the predictive value of a new kindergarten assessment of handwriting readiness on handwriting performance in first grade as evaluated by the Systematic Screening for Handwriting Difficulties (Dutch abbreviation: SOS). The kindergarten assessment consisted of the Writing Readiness Inventory Tool In Context (WRITIC), the Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration (Beery™VMI) and the Nine-Hole Peg Test (9-HPT). The WRITIC evaluates in kindergarten children (aged 5-6 years) prewriting skills, the Beery™VMI and 9-HPT evaluate visual motor integration and fine-motor coordination, all elements important for handwriting readiness. In kindergarten, 109 children (55 boys; mean age 70 months, SD 4.8 months) were tested with the WRITIC, Beery™VMI and 9-HPT and one year later in first grade (mean age 85 months, SD 4.5 months) with the SOS. A multivariable linear mixed model was used to identify variables that independently predict outcomes in first grade (SOS): baseline scores on WRITIC-TP, Beery™VMI, 9-HPT, 'sustained attention,' 'gender,' 'age' and 'intervention' in the intermediate period. The results showed that WRITIC-TP, Beery™VMI, and 9-HPT, 'sustained attention,' 'gender' and 'intervention' had all predictive value on the handwriting outcome. Thereby WRITIC-TP was the main predictor for outcome of SOS-Quality, and Beery™VMI and 9-HPT were the main predictors of SOS-Speed. This kindergarten assessment of WRITIC-TP, Beery™VMI, and 9-HPT contributes to the detection of children at risk for developing handwriting problems.
