Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2018 Jan;119(2):196-201.
doi: 10.1017/S0007114517003373. Epub 2017 Dec 22.

Energy intake in short bowel syndrome: assessment by 24-h dietary recalls compared with the doubly labelled water method

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Energy intake in short bowel syndrome: assessment by 24-h dietary recalls compared with the doubly labelled water method

Priscila G Fassini et al. Br J Nutr. 2018 Jan.

Abstract

Short bowel syndrome (SBS) represents a serious intestinal absorption disorder, and patients may be prone to severe malnutrition. Dietetic therapy is critically important both for immediate prognosis and successful long-term rehabilitation. To maintain energy balance, an accurate assessment of energy intake is required. Our objective was to compare energy intake (EI) assessed by 24-h dietary recalls (EIrecall), a standard clinical assessment, with the total energy expenditure measured by the doubly labelled water (TEEdlw) method in SBS patients and matched controls. A total of twenty-two participants (eleven each in the SBS and control groups (CG), six female and five male) were evaluated; CG were matched to SBS patients on the basis of age, BMI and sex. TEE was measured by DLW and compared with EI determined by four 24-h dietary recalls using the USDA Automated Multiple-Pass Method. Bland-Altman plots and paired Student's t test were used to compare EIrecall with TEEdlw (P<0·05). Participants' mean age was 53 (sd 8) years. TEEdlw (7·85 (SD 1·16) MJ/d, 0·14 (SD 0·02) MJ/kg per d) was significantly lower (P=0·014) compared with EIrecall (11·07 (SD 3·45) MJ/d, 0·21 (SD 0·08) MJ/kg per d) in the SBS group. On the other hand, in the CG group TEEdlw (10·02 (SD 1·86) MJ/d, 0·18 (SD 0·03) MJ/kg per d) was significantly higher (P=0·001) compared with EIrecall (7·19 (SD 1·68) MJ/d, 0·13 (SD 0·03) MJ/kg per d). In SBS patients, reported EI is higher than DLW-measured EI. Therefore, providing or prescribing energetic intake based on EIrecall without accounting for potential malabsorption-related losses can compromise the energy needs in SBS patients and affect nutritional status in the long term.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02113228.

Keywords: CG control group; DLW doubly labelled water; EI energy intake; EIrecall self-reported 24-h energy intake; PN parenteral nutrition; REE resting energy expenditure; SBS short bowel syndrome; TEE total energy expenditure; TEEdlw TEE measured by the DLW; Doubly labelled water; Energy intake; Short bowel syndrome; Total energy expenditure.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

Publication types

Associated data

LinkOut - more resources