Premium
Variability of the Harris‐Benedict Equation in Recently Published Textbooks
Author(s) -
Van Way Charles W.
Publication year - 1992
Publication title -
journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.935
H-Index - 98
eISSN - 1941-2444
pISSN - 0148-6071
DOI - 10.1177/0148607192016006566
Subject(s) - constant (computer programming) , term (time) , foundation (evidence) , mathematics , medicine , calculus (dental) , statistics , computer science , history , physics , orthodontics , programming language , archaeology , quantum mechanics
The Harris‐Benedict equation, as cited in a selection of textbooks of medicine, surgery, and nutrition, was compared with the original monograph published by the Carnegie Foundation. A significant amount of variation was found in published versions of this equation. Of 24 published versions, eight were sufficiently variant to produce errors of 7% to 55% in calculations of nutrition requirements. The error is usually in the constant term for one of the two Harris‐Benedict equations. Either the constant term for men is increased to a value approximately the same as for women, or the constant term for women is reduced to be approximately equal to that for men. The primary reason appears to be the lack of availability in medical libraries of the original Carnegie Foundation publication by Harris and Benedict. (Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition 16 :566–568, 1992)