Table 3 Results, outcomes and limitations of included studies
Author. Year (country) | Reported EI (mean ± S.D.) (kcal/day) | TEE (mean ± S.D.) (kcal/day) | Ratio of reported EI:TEE (mean ± S.D. where available), Reporting status | EI mis-reporting results | Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bandini et al. 1990 (USA) [21] | 1935 ± 722 (obese) 2193 ± 618 (non-obese) | 3390 ± 613 (obese) 2755 ± 600 (non-obese) | 0.59 ± 0.24 (obese), UR0.81 ± 0.19 (non-obese), UR | • Underestimation by: 41.3 ± 23.6% (obese) and 19.4 ± 18.7% (non-obese) (p < 0.0001)• Underestimation greater in obese group compared to non-obese group (p < 0.001)• Mean weight change over study period: 0.37 ± 0.97 kg (obese), 0.08 ± 0.69 kg (non-obese)• Results remained significant after adjustments for body weight changes | • LOA NR• Participants paid to encouraged adherence to FR |
Bandini et al. 1999 (USA) [22] (considered as a subset of the above article as the data are from the same study) | 1767 ± 601 (obese) 2151 ± 647 (non-obese) | 3314 ± 644 (obese) 2799 ± 680 (non-obese) | 0.53 (obese), UR0.77 (non-obese), UR | • Underestimation by 44.5 ± 21.8% (obese) and by 21.8 ± 20.5% (non-obese)• Underestimation greater in obese group compared to non-obese group (p < 0.001) | • As above |
Börnhorst et al. 2014 (Belgium, Spain and Sweden) [23] | 1468 ± 313 (overweight/obese)1511 ± 501 (thin/normal) | 1554 ± 214 (overweight/obese)1513 ± 231 (thin/normal) | 0.96 ± 0.23 (overweight/obese), AR1.01 ± 0.33 (thin/normal), AR | Underestimation by:• 5.5% in overweight/obese, 86 ± 356 kcal/day• 0.1% in thin/normal, 2 ± 471 kcal/day | • LOA NR• Differences between EI and TEE were large at the individual level• Small, convenience sample• Weight not recorded at end of DLW period |
Champagne et al. 1998 (USA) [24] | 1707 ± 69 (central fat)1782 ± 70 (obese) 1811 ± 69 (lean) 1883 ± 70 (peripheral fat) | 2498 ± 64 (central fat)2338 ± 65 (obese) 2263 ± 64 (lean) 2245 ± 65 (peripheral fat) | 0.68 (central fat), UR0.76 (obese), UR0.80 (lean), UR0.84 (peripheral fat), AR | Underestimation by:• 31.5 ± 2.9% in central fat, 791 ± 72 kcal/day• 24.5 ± 3.2% in obese, 557 ± 74 kcal/day• 21.2 ± 3.1% in lean, 453 ± 72 kcal/day• 17.3 ± 3.1% in peripherally fat, 362 ± 74 kcal/day | • LOA NR• Weight NR at end of DLW period• Significance levels reported in paper but unable to be interpreted |
Singh et al. 2009 (USA) [25] | 2094 ± 563 (Boys) 1890 ± 702 (Girls) | 3332 ± 312 (Boys) 2835 ± 336 (Girls) | 0.63 ± 0.18 (Boys), UR 0.66 ± 0.22 (Girls), UR | • Reported EI significantly lower than measured TEE (p < 0.0001) regardless of gender• Underestimation by 35 ± 20% in whole group, 1065 ± 636 kcal/day• Underestimation by 34% in girls, 945 ± 626 kcal/day• Underestimation by 37% in boys, 1238 ± 633 kcal/day• Error in reported intake was greater with increasing BMI (p = 0.05) | • LOA NR• EI and TEE not measured over the same time period• Use of convenience population |
Vasquez et al. 2006 (Chile) [26] | 1846 ± 261 (Boys) 1728 ± 168 (Girls) | 1629 ± 183 (Boys) 1481 ± 202 (Girls) | 1.13 (Boys), AR 1.17 (Girls), OR | • Overestimation by 13% in boys and 17% in girls (no p value reported) | • LOA NR• Population not representative• Did not report statistical differences between EI and TEE• Change in weight over DLW period NR |
Waling and Larsson. 2009 (Sweden) [27] | 2182 ± 388 kcal/day | 2584 ± 397 kcal/day | 0.86 ± 0.16, AR | Underestimation by:• 14% in whole group, 397 ± 421 kcal/day (95% CI: 0.86, 2.45)• 17% in boys, 464 ± 368 kcal/day (95% CI: 0.84, 3.04)• 11% in girls, 335 ± 471 kcal/day (95% CI: 0.07, 2.72)Underestimation did not differ between:• boys and girls (95% CI: −2.17, 1.08)• children who were overweight (n = 16) and those who were obese (n = 5) (95% CI: −1.64, 2.21)three children (14%) reported an EI within ± 5%; two children (10%) reported an EI > 5%; and 16 children (76%) reported an EI < 5% of individually measured TEE | • LOA NR• Small sample size |
