TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of total and activity energy expenditure estimates from physical activity questionnaires and doubly labelled water
T2 - a systematic review and meta-analysis
AU - Sharifzadeh, Mohammad
AU - Bagheri, Minoo
AU - Speakman, John R
AU - Djafarian, Kurosh
N1 - **Published VOR can be deposited with 12 month embargo**
PY - 2021/5/1
Y1 - 2021/5/1
N2 - Physical activity questionnaires (PAQ) could be suitable tools in free-living people for measures of physical activity, total and activity energy expenditure (TEE and AEE). This meta-analysis was performed to determine valid PAQ for estimating TEE and AEE using doubly labelled water (DLW). We identified data from relevant studies by searching Google Scholar, PubMed and Scopus databases. This revealed thirty-eight studies that had validated PAQ with DLW and reported the mean differences between PAQ and DLW measures of TEE (TEEDLW - TEEPAQ) and AEE (AEEDLW - AEEPAQ). We assessed seventy-eight PAQ consisting of fifty-nine PAQ that assessed TEE and thirty-five PAQ that examined AEE. There was no significant difference between TEEPAQ and TEEDLW with a weighted mean difference of -243·3 and a range of -841·4 to 354·6 kJ/d, and a significant weighted mean difference of AEEDLW - AEE PAQ 414·6 and a range of 78·7-750·5. To determine whether any PAQ was a valid tool for estimating TEE and AEE, we carried out a subgroup analysis by type of PAQ. Only Active-Q, administered in two seasons, and 3-d PA diaries were correlated with TEE by DLW at the population level; however, these two PAQ did not demonstrate an acceptable limit of agreement at individual level. For AEE, no PAQ was correlated with DLW either at the population or at the individual levels. Active-Q and 3-d PA diaries were identified as the only valid PAQ for TEE estimation. Further well-designed studies are needed to verify this result and identify additional valid PAQ.
AB - Physical activity questionnaires (PAQ) could be suitable tools in free-living people for measures of physical activity, total and activity energy expenditure (TEE and AEE). This meta-analysis was performed to determine valid PAQ for estimating TEE and AEE using doubly labelled water (DLW). We identified data from relevant studies by searching Google Scholar, PubMed and Scopus databases. This revealed thirty-eight studies that had validated PAQ with DLW and reported the mean differences between PAQ and DLW measures of TEE (TEEDLW - TEEPAQ) and AEE (AEEDLW - AEEPAQ). We assessed seventy-eight PAQ consisting of fifty-nine PAQ that assessed TEE and thirty-five PAQ that examined AEE. There was no significant difference between TEEPAQ and TEEDLW with a weighted mean difference of -243·3 and a range of -841·4 to 354·6 kJ/d, and a significant weighted mean difference of AEEDLW - AEE PAQ 414·6 and a range of 78·7-750·5. To determine whether any PAQ was a valid tool for estimating TEE and AEE, we carried out a subgroup analysis by type of PAQ. Only Active-Q, administered in two seasons, and 3-d PA diaries were correlated with TEE by DLW at the population level; however, these two PAQ did not demonstrate an acceptable limit of agreement at individual level. For AEE, no PAQ was correlated with DLW either at the population or at the individual levels. Active-Q and 3-d PA diaries were identified as the only valid PAQ for TEE estimation. Further well-designed studies are needed to verify this result and identify additional valid PAQ.
KW - Physical activity
KW - total energy expenditure
KW - activity energy expenditure
KW - doubly labelled water method
KW - doubly labeled water
KW - physical activity questionnaire
KW - weighted mean difference
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85092742687&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1017/S0007114520003049
DO - 10.1017/S0007114520003049
M3 - Article
C2 - 32718378
VL - 125
SP - 983
EP - 997
JO - British Journal of Nutrition
JF - British Journal of Nutrition
SN - 0007-1145
IS - 9
ER -