Using Respiratory Gas Analyzers to Determine Resting Metabolic Rate in Adults: A Systematic Review of Validity Studies
Metadatos
Mostrar el registro completo del ítemAutor
Olivas-León, César Ulises; Olivas-Aguirre, Francisco Javier; Chávez-Guevara, Isaac Armando; Almanza-Reyes, Horacio Eusebio; Patrón-Romero, Leslie; Rodríguez-Uribe, Genaro; Amaro Gahete, Francisco José; Hernández-Lepe, Marco AntonioEditorial
MDPI
Materia
Energetic expenditure Indirect Calorimetry Validation Study Reproducibility of Results
Fecha
2025-06-22Referencia bibliográfica
Olivas-León, C.U.; Olivas-Aguirre, F.J.; Chávez-Guevara, I.A.; Almanza-Reyes, H.E.; Patrón-Romero, L.; Rodríguez-Uribe, G.; Amaro-Gahete, F.J.; Hernández-Lepe, M.A. Using Respiratory Gas Analyzers to Determine Resting Metabolic Rate in Adults: A Systematic Review of Validity Studies. Sports 2025, 13, 198. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports13070198
Patrocinador
Secretaría de Ciencia, Humanidades, Tecnología e Innovación (Secihti), Grant ApoyosLNC-2023-69Resumen
Background: Correct assessment of resting metabolic rate (RMR) is fundamental for estimating total energy expenditure in both clinical nutrition and sports sciences research.
Various methods have been proposed for RMR determination, including predictive equations, isotopic dilution techniques, and indirect calorimetry. Over the past two decades,
portable gas analyzers have emerged as promising alternatives, offering more accessible and cost-effective solutions for metabolic assessment. However, evidence regarding
their validity remains inconsistent, particularly across diverse populations and varying
metabolic assessment protocols. Methods: This systematic review was conducted in May
2025 using the PubMed, Web of Science, and EBSCO databases, following the PRISMA-DTA
guidelines, and included observational studies with the objective of examining the available
evidence regarding the validity of portable gas analyzers to determine RMR in humans.
The methodological quality of each study was assessed using the NIH Quality Assessment
Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. Results: From an initial pool
of 230 studies, 16 met the eligibility criteria. The findings revealed notable variability in
measurement validity among devices, mainly influenced by device model, population
characteristics, and methodological factors. While portable analyzers such as FitMate
and Q-NRG exhibited high validity, MedGem exhibited systematic biases, particularly in
individuals with higher adiposity, leading to RMR overestimations. Conclusions: The main
results demonstrated the critical need for rigorous validation of portable gas analyzers
before their implementation in clinical and research settings to ensure their applicability
across diverse populations and metabolic assessments.





