Open AccessValidation of SenseWear Armband and ActiHeart monitors for assessments of daily energy expenditure in free‐living women with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Author(s) -
Farooqi Nighat,
Slinde Frode,
Håglin Lena,
Sandström Thomas
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
physiological reports
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.918
H-Index - 39
ISSN - 2051-817X
DOI - 10.1002/phy2.150
Subject(s) - doubly labeled water , medicine , energy expenditure , copd , intraclass correlation , pulmonary disease , physical activity , total energy expenditure , limits of agreement , physical therapy , nuclear medicine , clinical psychology , psychometrics
Abstract 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 (TEE SWA5 , AEE SWA5 ) or 6.1 (TEE SWA6 , AEE SWA6 ) and AH monitors (TEE AH , AEE AH ), using DLW (TEE DLW ) 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 TEE SWA5 methods (ICC = 0.76; 95% CI 0.47–0.90), with moderate agreements between the DLW and TEE SWA6 (ICC = 0.66; 95% CI 0.02–0.88) and the DLW and TEE AH 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.