Change search
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Validation of SenseWear Armband and ActiHeart monitors for assessments of daily energy expenditure in free-living women with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Pulmonary Medicine.
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Family Medicine.
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Pulmonary Medicine.
2013 (English)In: Physiological Reports, E-ISSN 2051-817X, Vol. 1, no 6, e00150Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

To provide individually adapted nutritional support to patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), objective and reliable methods must be used to assess patient energy requirements. The aim of this study was to validate the use of SenseWear Armband (SWA) and ActiHeart (AH) monitors for assessing total daily energy expenditure (TEE) and activity energy expenditure (AEE) and compare these techniques with the doubly labeled water (DLW) method in free‐living women with COPD. TEE and AEE were measured in 19 women with COPD for 14 days using SWAs with software version 5.1 (TEESWA5, AEESWA5) or 6.1 (TEESWA6, AEESWA6) and AH monitors (TEEAH, AEEAH), using DLW (TEEDLW) as the criterion method. The three methods were compared using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland–Altman analyses. The mean TEE did not significantly differ between the DLW and SWA5.1 methods (−21 ± 726 kJ/day; P = 0.9), but it did significantly differ between the DLW and SWA6.1 (709 ± 667 kJ/day) (P < 0.001) and the DLW and AH methods (709 ± 786 kJ/day) (P < 0.001). Strong agreement was observed between the DLW and TEESWA5 methods (ICC = 0.76; 95% CI 0.47–0.90), with moderate agreements between the DLW and TEESWA6 (ICC = 0.66; 95% CI 0.02–0.88) and the DLW and TEEAH methods (ICC = 0.61; 95% CI 0.05–0.85). Compared with the DLW method, the SWA5.1 underestimated AEE by 12% (P = 0.03), whereas the SWA6.1 and AH monitors underestimated AEE by 35% (P < 0.001). Bland–Altman plots revealed no systematic bias for TEE or AEE. The SWA5.1 can reliably assess TEE in women with COPD. However, the SWA6.1 and AH monitors underestimate TEE. The SWA and AH monitors underestimate AEE.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
The American Physiological Society , 2013. Vol. 1, no 6, e00150
Keyword [en]
Energy expenditure, validity of ActiHeart, validity of SenseWear Armband, women with COPD
National Category
Medical and Health Sciences
Research subject
Physiology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-121342DOI: 10.1002/phy2.150ISI: 24400152OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-121342DiVA: diva2:932121
Available from: 2016-05-31 Created: 2016-05-31 Last updated: 2016-10-07Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(610 kB)4 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 610 kBChecksum SHA-512
5af33a283bae09ec4ad07238df5724d1e59e56671db28a84033d4006c7ba555f6d02c5de20db01acdef25d8978f9c96bd389d724df51bc7bf37439e0eccb4b89
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Farooqi, NighatHåglin, LenaSandström, Thomas
By organisation
Pulmonary MedicineFamily Medicine
In the same journal
Physiological Reports
Medical and Health Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 4 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

Altmetric score

Total: 17 hits
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link