Skip to main content
. 2016 Aug 31;15:79. doi: 10.1186/s12937-016-0197-2

Table 3.

Mean predicted BMR and difference with measured BMR

Mean ± SD (kJ/d) Bias ± SD (kJ/d) P value in paired t-test R2 Limits of Agreement (kJ/d)
a.
Cross-sectional study (n = 232)
Singapore 6230 ± 1115 -3 ± 534 NA 0.81* -1070 to 1064
HB [11] 6777 ± 1124 545 ± 607 <0.0001 0.76* -669 to 1759
Henry [8] 6362 ± 1003 131 ± 655 <0.005 0.72* -1179 to1440
Liu [26] 6558 ± 1187 426 ± 745 <0.0001 0.79* -718 to 1570
Mifflin [30] 6397 ± 1080 165 ± 621 <0.0001 0.74* -1076 to 1406
Owen [31, 32] 6214 ± 1036 -17 ± 604 0.66 0.79* -1225 to 1190
Yang [25] 7028 ± 1638 850 ± 786 <0.0001 0.79* -721 to 2421
b.
Cross-validation study (n = 70)
Singapore 5651 ± 1055 56 ± 407 0.25 0.87* -759 to 870
HB [11] 6356 ± 998 761 ± 413 <0.0001 0.87* -65 to 1586
Henry [8] 6029 ± 980 434 ± 469 <0.0001 0.83* -503 to 1371
Liu [26] 6154 ± 1107 559 ± 381 <0.0001 0.89* -204 to 1322
Mifflin [30] 6030 ± 1000 435 ± 429 <0.0001 0.85* -424 to 1293
Owen [31, 32] 5722 ± 934 126 ± 516 0.044 0.79* -907 to 1159
Yang [25] 6225 ± 1545 630 ± 668 <0.0001 0.85* -707 to 1967

*P < 0.001

HB Harris and Benedict