Estimates of resting energy expenditure using predictive equations in adults with severe burns: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundMany equations to estimate the resting energy expenditure (REE) of patients with burns are currently available, but which of them provides the best guide to optimize nutrition support is controversial. This review examined the bias and precision of commonly used equations in patients with severe burns.MethodsA systematic search of the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was undertaken on June 1, 2023, to identify studies comparing predicted REE (using equations) with measured REE (by indirect calorimetry [IC]) in adults with severe burns. Meta‐analyses of bias and calculations of precisions were performed in each predictive equation, respectively.ResultsNine eligible studies and 12 eligible equations were included. Among the equations, the Toronto equation had the lowest bias (26.1 kcal/day; 95% CI, −417.0 to 469.2), followed by the Harris‐Benedict equation × 1.5 (1.5HB) and the Milner equation. The Ireton‐Jones equation (303.4 kcal/day; 95% CI, 224.5–382.3) acceptably overestimated the REE. The accuracy of all of the equations was <50%. The Ireton‐Jones equation had the relatively highest precision (41.2%), followed by the 1.5HB equation (37.0%) and the Toronto equation (34.7%).ConclusionFor adult patients with severe burns, all of the commonly used equations for the prediction of REE are inaccurate. It is recommended to use IC for accurate REE measurements and to use the Toronto equation, 1.5HB equation, or Ireton‐Jones equation as a reference when IC is not available. Further studies are needed to propose more accurate REE predictive models.