EAL

PWM: Foods and Nutrients (2006)

Citation:

Study Design:

Class:

- Click here for explanation of classification scheme.

Quality Rating:

Research Purpose:

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether obese and non-obese girls differed in various aspects of energy expenditure and energy intake.

Inclusion Criteria:

African American girls between seven and 10 years of age.

Exclusion Criteria:

Medication use
Presence of chronic medical problem
Having any signs or symptoms of an underlying endocrine abnormality.

Description of Study Protocol:

Study Design

On the evening prior to lab testing, participants underwent open-circuit spirometry measurements with mouthpiece and breathing valve in a 15-minute practice session
On the day of lab testing, the following measurements were taken:
- Fat-free mass (FFM) and fat mass measurements using a Hologic QDR 2000W dual-energy X-ray (DEXA) absorptiometer was measured at rest (following a 480kcal meal of 71% carbohydrate, 20% fat and 9% protein) and during a graded treadmill exercise
- Resting metabolic rate (RMR) was measured (after the participants rested for 30 minutes) using a respiratory aparatus for three five-minute periods interspaced by five-minute rest intervals
- Heart rate was measured once each minute during five minutes of seated rest and standing rest and during the last 15-second stages of treadmill exercise
- Physical activity and diet were measured for five consecutive days.

Data Collection Summary:

Dependent variables: Obesity status (BMI greater than 85^th percentile)
Independent variables:
- Fat-free mass and fat mass: DEXA
- RMR (measured); HR (measured)
- Free-living PA: Five consecutive days of HR measurements
- Diet: Mean daily kcal and fat intake (grams per 24-hours); five consecutive days of 24-hour recalls completed by the girls and their mothers
Control variables: None
Statistical analysis: Student T-tests.

Description of Actual Data Sample:

Original sample: Not specified
Withdrawals/Drop-outs: Not specified
Final sample: 13 African American girls (eight obese, five nonobese)
Location: Augusta, Georgia
Race/Ethnicity: African American
SES: Not specified
Age: Seven to 10 years old.

Summary of Results:

Total calories: Obese girls reported a non-significant, greater mean energy intake (kcal per 24 hours) compared to the non-obese girls (1,781±188kcal vs. 1,720±214kcal, P=0.834)
Dietary fat: Obese girls reported a non-significant, lower mean fat intake (grams per 24 hours) compared to the non-obese girls (72.6±8.3g vs. 75.9±9.7g, P=0.803).

Author Conclusion:

No conclusion was reported.

Funding Source:

University/Hospital:

Georgia Prevention Institute Medical College of Georgia

Reviewer Comments:

Limitations:

There was limited information provided in this article
There was no discussion section in this article
Small sample size
Diet fat was only reported in absolute terms and not as a percentage of total kcal.

Quality Criteria Checklist: Primary Research
Relevance Questions
	1.	Would implementing the studied intervention or procedure (if found successful) result in improved outcomes for the patients/clients/population group? (Not Applicable for some epidemiological studies)	Yes
	2.	Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about?	Yes
	3.	Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to dieteticspractice?	Yes
	4.	Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies)	Yes

Validity Questions
1.	Was the research question clearly stated?		Yes
	1.1.	Was (were) the specific intervention(s) or procedure(s) [independent variable(s)] identified?	Yes
	1.2.	Was (were) the outcome(s) [dependent variable(s)] clearly indicated?	Yes
	1.3.	Were the target population and setting specified?	Yes
2.	Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias?		Yes
	2.1.	Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified (e.g., risk, point in disease progression, diagnostic or prognosis criteria), and with sufficient detail and without omitting criteria critical to the study?	Yes
	2.2.	Were criteria applied equally to all study groups?	Yes
	2.3.	Were health, demographics, and other characteristics of subjects described?	Yes
	2.4.	Were the subjects/patients a representative sample of the relevant population?	Yes
3.	Were study groups comparable?		Yes
	3.1.	Was the method of assigning subjects/patients to groups described and unbiased? (Method of randomization identified if RCT)	Yes
	3.2.	Were distribution of disease status, prognostic factors, and other factors (e.g., demographics) similar across study groups at baseline?	Yes
	3.3.	Were concurrent controls or comparisons used? (Concurrent preferred over historical control or comparison groups.)	No
	3.4.	If cohort study or cross-sectional study, were groups comparable on important confounding factors and/or were preexisting differences accounted for by using appropriate adjustments in statistical analysis?	Yes
	3.5.	If case control study, were potential confounding factors comparable for cases and controls? (If case series or trial with subjects serving as own control, this criterion is not applicable.)	No
	3.6.	If diagnostic test, was there an independent blind comparison with an appropriate reference standard (e.g., "gold standard")?	No
4.	Was method of handling withdrawals described?		Yes
	4.1.	Were follow-up methods described and the same for all groups?	Yes
	4.2.	Was the number, characteristics of withdrawals (i.e., dropouts, lost to follow up, attrition rate) and/or response rate (cross-sectional studies) described for each group? (Follow up goal for a strong study is 80%.)	N/A
	4.3.	Were all enrolled subjects/patients (in the original sample) accounted for?	Yes
	4.4.	Were reasons for withdrawals similar across groups?	N/A
	4.5.	If diagnostic test, was decision to perform reference test not dependent on results of test under study?	N/A
5.	Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias?		No
	5.1.	In intervention study, were subjects, clinicians/practitioners, and investigators blinded to treatment group, as appropriate?	No
	5.2.	Were data collectors blinded for outcomes assessment? (If outcome is measured using an objective test, such as a lab value, this criterion is assumed to be met.)	No
	5.3.	In cohort study or cross-sectional study, were measurements of outcomes and risk factors blinded?	N/A
	5.4.	In case control study, was case definition explicit and case ascertainment not influenced by exposure status?	Yes
	5.5.	In diagnostic study, were test results blinded to patient history and other test results?	N/A
6.	Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were interveningfactors described?		No
	6.1.	In RCT or other intervention trial, were protocols described for all regimens studied?	N/A
	6.2.	In observational study, were interventions, study settings, and clinicians/provider described?	No
	6.3.	Was the intensity and duration of the intervention or exposure factor sufficient to produce a meaningful effect?	No
	6.4.	Was the amount of exposure and, if relevant, subject/patient compliance measured?	No
	6.5.	Were co-interventions (e.g., ancillary treatments, other therapies) described?	No
	6.6.	Were extra or unplanned treatments described?	No
	6.7.	Was the information for 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6 assessed the same way for all groups?	N/A
	6.8.	In diagnostic study, were details of test administration and replication sufficient?	No
7.	Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable?		No
	7.1.	Were primary and secondary endpoints described and relevant to the question?	Yes
	7.2.	Were nutrition measures appropriate to question and outcomes of concern?	No
	7.3.	Was the period of follow-up long enough for important outcome(s) to occur?	No
	7.4.	Were the observations and measurements based on standard, valid, and reliable data collection instruments/tests/procedures?	No
	7.5.	Was the measurement of effect at an appropriate level of precision?	No
	7.6.	Were other factors accounted for (measured) that could affect outcomes?	No
	7.7.	Were the measurements conducted consistently across groups?	Yes
8.	Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators?		No
	8.1.	Were statistical analyses adequately described and the results reported appropriately?	No
	8.2.	Were correct statistical tests used and assumptions of test not violated?	No
	8.3.	Were statistics reported with levels of significance and/or confidence intervals?	No
	8.4.	Was "intent to treat" analysis of outcomes done (and as appropriate, was there an analysis of outcomes for those maximally exposed or a dose-response analysis)?	No
	8.5.	Were adequate adjustments made for effects of confounding factors that might have affected the outcomes (e.g., multivariate analyses)?	No
	8.6.	Was clinical significance as well as statistical significance reported?	No
	8.7.	If negative findings, was a power calculation reported to address type 2 error?	No
9.	Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration?		No
	9.1.	Is there a discussion of findings?	No
	9.2.	Are biases and study limitations identified and discussed?	No
10.	Is bias due to study's funding or sponsorship unlikely?		Yes
	10.1.	Were sources of funding and investigators' affiliations described?	No
	10.2.	Was the study free from apparent conflict of interest?	Yes