4. Outstanding methodological concerns
The very limited amount of cross-validation data in children has
been highlighted above. It would be preferable to have much more data in this
respect, but in reality it is unlikely to be forthcoming due to the difficulty
of obtaining comparator measurements of carbon dioxide production or energy
expenditure in young children over long periods. Furthermore, it is difficult to
validate a technique which the theoretical estimates of error suggest is likely
to be more accurate than any possible 'reference' method.
A specific concern that has arisen from the review of the world
literature presented above is that many of the studies are yielding very high
coefficients of variation for TEE in any given age group. Examples of these are
illustrated in Figure 11 in which all CVs refer to data expressed per kg
body weight which should remove a large part of the variance arising from
differences in body size. The CVs are commonly in excess of 25% implying that
there is a three-fold range in TEE between a child at -2 SD and one at +2 SD. Is
this a genuine phenomenon, or is it a result of random errors which are
expanding the true range? We have taken two approaches to this question. The
first is to re-analyse samples from subjects who yield outlying values and to
scrutinise their data with particular vigilance in order to search for a priori
grounds for excluding the result. This approach sometimes reveals errors in the
analysis or unacceptably high propagated errors, but usually fails to do so.
Furthermore, the results presented for publication are calculated after any such
exclusions (see Vasquez-Velasquez and Davies data sets in Figure 11). A
second way of detecting unacceptably low TEE values is to calculate the ratio
TEE/SMR since this would never be expected to be below 1.2. VASQUEZ-VELASQUEZ
(1989) and DAVIES (unpublished) have performed such an analysis and found very
few results lower than 1.2 x SMR and none below 1.0 x SMR. These results fail to
reveal any obvious reason to question the high CVs, but they remain intuitively
surprising and require further thought as fresh data sets become available.
Figure 11. Published
coefficients of variation for TEE expressed per kg body
weight.