Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-nlwjb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-06T23:48:48.279Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of total and activity energy expenditure estimates from physical activity questionnaires and doubly labelled water: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2020

Mohammad Sharifzadeh Open the ORCID record for Mohammad Sharifzadeh [Opens in a new window] ,
Minoo Bagheri ,
John R. Speakman  and
Kurosh Djafarian
Mohammad Sharifzadeh
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Nutrition, School of Nutritional Sciences and Dietetics, Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS), Tehran 1416-643931, Iran
Minoo Bagheri
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN 37232, USA
John R. Speakman
Affiliation:
Institute of Genetics and Developmental Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, People’s Republic of China Institute of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK
Kurosh Djafarian*
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Nutrition, School of Nutritional Sciences and Dietetics, Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS), Tehran 1416-643931, Iran
*
*Corresponding author: Kurosh Djafarian, fax +98 21 88974462, email kdjafarian@tums.ac.ir
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Physical activity questionnaires (PAQ) could be suitable tools in free-living people for measures of physical activity, total and activity energy expenditure (TEE and AEE). This meta-analysis was performed to determine valid PAQ for estimating TEE and AEE using doubly labelled water (DLW). We identified data from relevant studies by searching Google Scholar, PubMed and Scopus databases. This revealed thirty-eight studies that had validated PAQ with DLW and reported the mean differences between PAQ and DLW measures of TEE (TEEDLW − TEEPAQ) and AEE (AEEDLW − AEEPAQ). We assessed seventy-eight PAQ consisting of fifty-nine PAQ that assessed TEE and thirty-five PAQ that examined AEE. There was no significant difference between TEEPAQ and TEEDLW with a weighted mean difference of –243·3 and a range of –841·4 to 354·6 kJ/d, and a significant weighted mean difference of AEEDLW – AEE PAQ 414·6 and a range of 78·7–750·5. To determine whether any PAQ was a valid tool for estimating TEE and AEE, we carried out a subgroup analysis by type of PAQ. Only Active-Q, administered in two seasons, and 3-d PA diaries were correlated with TEE by DLW at the population level; however, these two PAQ did not demonstrate an acceptable limit of agreement at individual level. For AEE, no PAQ was correlated with DLW either at the population or at the individual levels. Active-Q and 3-d PA diaries were identified as the only valid PAQ for TEE estimation. Further well-designed studies are needed to verify this result and identify additional valid PAQ.

Keywords

Physical activityTotal energy expenditureActivity energy expenditureDoubly labelled water method

Information

Type
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 125 , Issue 9 , 14 May 2021 , pp. 983 - 997
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Nutrition Society

Total energy expenditure (TEE) consists of three components: BMR (or basal energy expenditure; BEE) ≈ 60–75 % of TEE, activity energy expenditure (AEE) ≈15–30 % of TEE and dietary thermogenesis ≈10 % of TEE(Reference Neilson, Robson and Friedenreich1,Reference Donahoo, Levine and Melanson2) . TEE, BEE and AEE change during the life course and are different between the sexes, with males usually higher than females and older individuals lower than younger ones(Reference Speakman and Westerterp3). TEE and AEE may also be affected by different disease states(Reference Li and Siegrist4). BEE as a part of TEE decreases with age and this age-related reduction is affected by sex and body composition(Reference Siervo, Oggioni and Lara5,Reference Milanović, Pantelić and Trajković6) . TEE is balanced by energy intake. When this balance is disrupted individuals become obese(Reference Hall, Heymsfield and Kemnitz7).

One of the most important means of decreasing risk of diabetes and CVD is to increase physical activity(Reference Hu, Leitzmann and Stampfer8,Reference Bassuk and Manson9) . Also, previous research demonstrated that TEE changes in some diseases, including advance pancreatic cancer, sepsis(Reference Moses, Slater and Preston10,Reference Uehara, Plank and Hill11) and resistance training(Reference Hunter, Wetzstein and Fields12). Therefore, measuring TEE and PA is essential to set up efficient strategies for prevention and treatment of these disorders. The ‘gold standard’ method for assessing TEE (and AEE by difference between TEE and BEE) is the doubly labelled water (DLW) method(Reference Speakman13). DLW can also be used to estimate food intake rates as individuals are generally in energy balance during measurements. However, this technique is relatively expensive (currently around 500–800US$ per subject) and hence is unsuitable for large-scale survey work. As an alternative, self-report questionnaires are often used in epidemiological studies to assess physical activity levels and food intake, and these may be extended to estimate AEE. In addition, since AEE is the most variable part of the TEE, they are also often used to evaluate TEE(Reference Westerterp14–Reference Fujii, Yamamoto and Takeda-Imai16). Questionnaires are advantageous because they are inexpensive, relatively easy to administer and generally well tolerated by participants(17–Reference Wendel-Vos, Schuit and Saris19). However, self-report questionnaires for food intake have come under considerable criticism recently, because people are unreliable monitors of their own behaviour and have poor recall of detailed past events. Research demonstrated that self report questionnaires were not reliable measures of not only food intake(Reference Dhurandhar, Schoeller and Brown20), but also physical activity(Reference Neilson, Robson and Friedenreich21). Previous comparisons of physical activity questionnaires (PAQ) and DLW have shown that misreporting of energy expenditure by PAQ is also common(Reference Neilson, Robson and Friedenreich21).

PAQ are being developed continuously and hence it is necessary to validate which PAQ provide valid estimates of TEE and AEE(Reference Melanson, Freedson and Blair22) by comparison to the ‘gold standard’ DLW methodology. Systematic reviews conducted a decade ago by Neilson et al.(Reference Neilson, Robson and Friedenreich1) and Prince et al.(Reference Prince, Adamo and Hamel23) examined the correlation between self-report (PAQ) and direct measures of adult physical activity. The latter study focused on the ineffectiveness of self-report assessment tools of physical activity. At present, the validity and reliability of many recently developed PAQ have not been established. Furthermore, it is unknown if these questionnaires are valid to evaluate TEE and AEE in either clinical settings or epidemiological studies(Reference Neilson, Robson and Friedenreich1). Some PAQ may be useful in epidemiological studies, and some in individual studies like clinical research. To find PAQ suitable for these two kinds of studies, we need to follow two criteria: first, at the population level, suitable PAQ must have a mean difference of <10 % in differences with a gold standard method like DLW and a Spearman correlation of >0·6(Reference Neilson, Robson and Friedenreich1). At the individual level, PAQ must have an acceptable limit of agreement which can be defined by the Bland–Altman method(Reference Neilson, Robson and Friedenreich21). Therefore, the purpose of the present work was to perform a meta-analysis of studies exploring the validity of existing PAQ to estimate TEE and/or AEE, across all age groups.

Methods

Search strategy

The following databases were searched to identify studies published up to 2 October 2019: Google Scholar, PubMed and Scopus database using the following lists and terms:

  • List A: ‘Doubly labeled water’ OR ‘doubly-labeled water’ OR ‘isotope labeled water’ OR ‘doubly labelled water’

  • List B: ‘Activity monitor*’ OR ‘physical Activity*’ OR ‘Motor Activity*’ OR ‘physical activity level’ OR ‘Activity energy expenditure’

  • List C: ‘Energy expenditure’ OR ‘TEE’

  • List D: ‘Resting metabolic rate’

  • List E:”Questionnaire*” OR ‘Survey’ OR ‘Record’ OR ‘Recall’

  • List F: valid*

Key search terms in Lists A, B, C, D, E and F were combined together.

Three independent reviewers screened the studies and extracted relevant research. When duplicate reports were removed, the full texts of studies were further assessed to extract the required data for the present study.

We included studies that (A) validated PAQ with DLW based on measurements of TEE and/or AEE and (B) included PAQ that calculated TEE or AEE. Our search was limited to studies written in English, with no constraint on publication year and with no restriction on subject age, disease status, sex and gestation and lactation status.

Data extraction

We extracted the following information from each study: publication year, country, sample size, sex, mean values and standard deviations, age, weight, BMI (kg/m2), body fat percentage (BF %) (Table 1), TEE (kJ/d) (Table 2) and AEE (kJ/d) measured by both DLW and PAQ (Table 3).

Table 1.

Characteristics of the studies included into the meta-analysis (Numbers and percentages; mean values and standard deviations)

Table 2.

Summary of results for the difference in total energy expenditure (TEE) means between physical activity questionnaires (PAQ) and doubly labelled water (DLW)* (Mean values and standard deviations)

PAQA, Physical Activity Questionnaire for Adolescents; MAQ, Modifiable Activity Questionnaire; RPAQ, Recent Physical Activity Questionnaire; 7 d-PAR, 7-d Physical Activity Recall Questionnaire; QAPSE, Questionnaire d’Activité Physique Saint-Etienne; TEC + MNLTPA + EESLEEP, (TEC, Tecumseh Occupational Activity Questionnaire) + (MNLTPA, Minnesota Leisure Time Physical Activity Questionnaire) + (EE SLEEP, EE from sleep); 7-dPArecord, 7-d physical activity record questionnaire; STAR-Q, Sedentary Time and Activity Reporting Questionnaire; MARCA, Multimedia Activity Recall for Children and Adolescents; PAD, 24-h physical activity diaries; SAPAC, Self-Administered Physical Activity Checklist; PARA-SCI, physical activity recall assessment for people with spinal cord injury; PASIPD, physical activity scale for individuals with physical disabilities; FCQ, Five City Project Questionnaire; Modified YAPS, modified Yale Physical Activity Survey; JALSPAQ, the Japan Arteriosclerosis Longitudinal Study Physical Activity Questionnaire; CAPS, Cross-Cultural Activity Participation Study.

* All data in kJ/d.

Table 3.

Summary of results from difference in activity energy expenditure (AEE) means between physical activity questionnaires (PAQ) and doubly labelled water (DLW)* (Mean values and standard deviations)

MNLTPA, Minnesota Leisure Time Physical Activity Questionnaire; Modified YAPS, modified Yale Physical Activity Survey; STAR-Q, Sedentary Time and Activity Reporting Questionnaire; 7-dPAR, 7-d Physical Activity Recall Questionnaire; MARCA, Multimedia Activity Recall for Children and Adolescents; SAPAC, Self-Administered Physical Activity Checklist; PARA-SCI, physical activity recall assessment for people with spinal cord injury; PASIPD, physical activity scale for individuals with physical disabilities; 7-dPArecord, 7-d physical activity record questionnaire; PASE, Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly; PHQ, Personal Habits Questionnaire; modPASE, modified Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly; CHAMPS, Community Health Activities Model Program for Seniors.

* All data in kJ/d.

Quality assessment

The quality of each eligible study was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale adapted for cross-sectional studies(Reference Herzog, Álvarez-Pasquin and Díaz24). This quality assessment was performed based on seven questions in three main domains including selection, comparability and outcome (online Supplementary Table S1).

Statistical analysis

In our meta-analysis, the means and standard deviations of the differences in TEE or AEE measured by PAQ and DLW (the study outcome) were pooled using the weighted averages of the mean differences. Between-study heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran’s Q test and I 2. According to previous research, we considered I 2 values of 25, 50 and 75 % as low, moderate and high heterogeneity, respectively(Reference Higgins, Thompson and Deeks25). Random-effects models (DerSimonian–Laird approach) were administered if heterogeneity was significant(Reference Mantel and Haenszel26). To explore potential sources of heterogeneity, we performed subgroup analysis with the following covariates: sex, age, BMI, disease and body fat. Age was categorised as <13, ≥13 and <24, ≥24 and <44, ≥44 and <64 and ≥65 years. Subgroup analysis according to type of diseases was also conducted by classifying studies based on the health status of the study population: healthy or having either chronic kidney disease or spinal cord injury. BMI (kg/m2) was classified as BMI < 18·5, 18·5 ≤ BMI < 25, 25 ≤ BMI < 30 and 30 ≤ BMI < 35 and BF % divided into the following groups 15 ≤ body fat < 25, 25 ≤ body fat < 35 and body fat ≥ 35. All statistical tests for this meta-analysis were performed using STATA software (version 14.0; Stata Corporation).

Results

We identified 1780 studies of which sixty-nine were identified in PubMed and 1711 in Scopus and Google Scholar. A total of 113 studies remained after a preliminary title and abstract review, seventy-five records were excluded from our analysis since they did not report TEE or AEE (n 15) or did not validate self-report measures with DLW (n 31) or did not use PAQ (n 13) or reported AEE in an inappropriate way like PA score or metabolic equivalent category (n 16). In the end, thirty-eight articles met the inclusion criteria of our study and were considered for further assessment (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

Study selection process. TEE, total energy expenditure; AEE, activity energy expenditure; PAQ, physical activity questionnaire.

Study characteristics

The thirty-eight studies included 5997 individuals. There were seven studies performed in Sweden(Reference Arvidsson, Slinde and Hulthen27–Reference Hagfors, Westerterp and Skoldstam33), one in Australia(Reference Barnard, Tapsell and Davies34), one in France(Reference Bonnefoy, Normand and Pachiaudi35), seventeen in the USA(Reference Conway, Irwin and Ainsworth36–Reference Neuhouser, Di and Tinker50), one in Canada(Reference Csizmadi, Neilson and Kopciuk51), one in New Zealand(Reference Foley, Maddison and Rush52), one in Brazil(Reference Tanhoffer, Tanhoffer and Raymond53), three in the UK(Reference Besson, Brage and Jakes54–Reference Sridharan, Wong and Vilar56), one in China(Reference Liu, Woo and Tang57), one in India(Reference Corder, Brage and Wright58), two in the Netherlands(Reference Philippaerts, Westerterp and Lefevre59,Reference Johansson and Westerterp60) , one in Japan(Reference Ishikawa-Takata, Naito and Tanaka61) and one in Finland(Reference Pietilainen, Korkeila and Bogl62). For studies that included more than one PAQ, each of these PAQ was entered separately into our meta-analysis. Therefore, the total number of PAQ extracted for the analysis was seventy-eight. Of these, fifty-nine of the PAQ reported TEE and thirty-five of them reported AEE. Forty different PAQ were identified. Thirty-one PAQ included women only, twenty-five included men only and the remaining twenty-two included both sexes. The mean age of the study population that was reported in sixty-four studies using PAQ ranged from 8·2 to 73·4 years. The mean BMI that was recorded in fifty-seven studies using PAQ ranged from 16 to 34 kg/m2. The mean body fat that was recorded in forty-two studies ranged from 14 to 44 %.

Main analysis

Forest plots of the mean differences between the estimates of DLW and PAQ measures of TEE are shown in Fig. 2. The weighted mean difference (WMD) was not significant between TEEDLW − TEEPAQ (WMD –243, 95 % CI –841·4, 354·6), I 2 = 97·9 %, P < 0·0001). The mean differences between the estimates of AEEDLW and AEE PAQ are shown in Fig. 3. A significant difference was found between AEE examined by various indirect measures and the direct measures derived from DLW (WMD 414·6, 95 % CI 78·7, 750·5), I 2 = 92 %, P < 0·001) in which AEE assessed by DLW was higher than that of measured by PAQ.

Fig. 2.

Forest plot of mean differences of total energy expenditure (TEE) measured by the doubly labelled water method and TEE measured using physical activity questionnaires. WMD, weighted mean difference.

Fig. 3.

Forest plot of mean differences of activity energy expenditure (AEE) measured by the doubly labelled water method and AEE measured using physical activity questionnaires. WMD, weighted mean difference.

Subgroup analysis

Since we observed significant between-study heterogeneity for both TEE and AEE, we examined possible sources of heterogeneity within the included studies using subgroup analyses. We conducted subgroup analysis to explore the effect of PAQ types on the mean difference between the estimates of TEE and AEE measured by DLW and PAQ (Tables 4 and 5). In thirteen studies that reported information at the individual level, agreement, only two of them showed good agreement. In the study that was conducted by Conway et al.(Reference Conway, Seale and Jacobs63) on twenty-four subjects, as well as in the study conducted by Sridharan et al. (Reference Sridharan, Wong and Vilar64), for ten subjects, the difference between TEEDLW and TEE 7-d physical activity record was <10 %. A Recent Physical Activity Questionnaire had a narrow limit of agreement with a mean bias of 451 kJ/d (6 %). At the group level, our findings indicated that heterogeneity disappeared in five subgroups of TEEPAQ types including Physical Activity Questionnaire for Adolescents, Active-Q, 7 d physical activity record, the Sedentary Time and Activity Reporting Questionnaire and 3-d PA diaries. Weighted mean differences of TEE were significant for Physical Activity Questionnaire for Adolescents, 7 d physical activity record, Sedentary Time and Activity Reporting Questionnaire and non-significant for Active-Q (0·403) and 3-d PA diaries (0·341). Active Q and 3-d PA diaries were the only PAQ where their estimated report of TEE was within the prespecified minimum difference with TEEDLW.

Table 4.

Agreement between physical activity questionnaire (PAQ) and doubly labelled water (DLW) estimates of total energy expenditure (TEE) stratified by PAQ type (Mean values and 95 % confidence intervals)

PAQA, Physical activity questionnaire for adolescents; MAQ, Modifiable Activity Questionnaire ; RPAQ, Recent Physical Activity Questionnaire ; 7-dPAQ, 7-d Physical Activity Recall Questionnaire; QAPSE, Questionnaire d’Activité Physique Saint-Etienne; TEC + MNLTPA + EESLEEP, (TEC, Tecumseh Occupational Activity Questionnaire) + (MNLTPA, Minnesota Leisure Time Physical Activity Questionnaire) + (EE SLEEP, EE from sleep); STAR-Q, Sedentary Time and Activity Reporting Questionnaire; MARCA, Multimedia Activity Recall for Children and Adolescents; 24-PAD, 24-h physical activity diaries; SAPAC, Self-Administered Physical Activity Checklist; PARA-SCI, physical activity recall assessment for people with spinal cord injury; PASIPD, physical activity scale for individuals with physical disabilities; CAPS, Cross-Cultural Activity Participation Study; JALSPAQ, the Japan Arteriosclerosis Longitudinal Study Physical Activity Questionnaire.

* P for the meta-analysis. P < 0·05 indicates a lack of agreement between PAQ and DLW estimates of TEE by using a random-effects model.

† P heterogeneity: heterogeneity was evaluated using Cochran’s test, and P < 0·5 indicates significant heterogeneity across studies.

Table 5.

Agreement between physical activity questionnaire (PAQ) and doubly labelled water (DLW) estimates of activity energy expenditure (AEE) stratified by PAQ type (Mean values and 95 % confidence intervals)

MNLTPA, Minnesota Leisure Time Physical Activity Questionnaire; Modified YAPS, modified Yale Physical Activity Survey; STAR-Q, Sedentary Time and Activity Reporting Questionnaire; 7-dPAR, 7-d Physical Activity Recall Questionnaire; MARCA, Multimedia Activity Recall for Children and Adolescents; SAPAC, Self-Administered Physical Activity Checklist; PARA-SCI, physical activity recall assessment for people with spinal cord injury; PASIPD, physical activity scale for individuals with physical disabilities; 7-dPArecord, 7-d physical activity record questionnaire; PASE, Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly; PHQ, Personal Habits Questionnaire; CHAMPS, Community Health Activities Model Program for Seniors; modPASE, modified Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly.

Also, heterogeneity disappeared in one of the AEEPAQ types (Sedentary Time and Activity Reporting Questionnaire) but the WMD of AEE were significant for this questionnaire. Also, for AEE only eight studies reported information at the individual level and none of them showed acceptable agreement.

Additional subgroup analyses were also performed by comparing results grouped by sex, age, BMI, disease and body fat (Tables 6 and 7). Results showed that mean differences between PAQ and DLW to estimate TEE may be different based on age groups. Differences were significant only in those who were in the range of 13 < age < 24 years. Although BMI was not source of heterogeneity, there was significant difference between PAQ and DLW for estimating TEE in those who were overweight.

Table 6.

Subgroup analysis of mean differences between physical activity questionnaire (PAQ) and doubly labelled water (DLW) estimates of total energy expenditure (TEE) stratified by identified study characteristics (Mean values and 95 % confidence intervals)

* P for the meta-analysis. P < 0·05 indicates a lack of agreement between PAQ and DLW estimates of TEE by using a random-effects model.

† P heterogeneity: heterogeneity was evaluated using Cochran’s test, and P < 0·5 indicates significant heterogeneity across studies.

Table 7.

Subgroup analysis of mean differences between physical activity questionnaire (PAQ) and doubly labelled water (DLW) estimates of Activity energy expenditure (AEE) stratified by identified study characteristics (Mean values and 95 % confidence intervals)

* P for the meta-analysis. P < 0·05 indicates a lack of agreement between PAQ and DLW estimates of TEE by using a random-effects model.

† P heterogeneity: heterogeneity was evaluated using Cochran’s test, and P < 0·5 indicates significant heterogeneity across studies.

Subgroup analysis was performed to find potential sources of heterogeneity for the mean differences between PAQ and DLW estimates of AEE. Results showed that all the predefined criteria were potential sources of heterogeneity except for sex. According to the subgroup analysis, the greatest differences were observed in women, aged more than 44 years old, all categories of BMI except those who were overweight, healthy people and BF % between 25 < body fat < 35.

Discussion

In this meta-analysis, we identified Active-Q and 3-d PA diaries as indirect tools that had acceptable mean differences and heterogeneity for measuring TEE at the population level. Subgroup analyses showed that the WMD in TEE measured by PAQ and DLW was influenced by age and disease status, but not by sex and the BF %. Moreover, except for sex, all of other predefined criteria including age, disease status, BMI and BF % were potential sources of heterogeneity.

According to previous studies, a PAQ was considered useful for estimating TEE at population level for epidemiological study if the percentage difference in means between TEEDLW and TEEPAQ ((TEEDLW_TEEPAQ)/TEE_DLW) × 100 % was <10 % and correlations between these two estimations were >0·60(Reference Neilson, Robson and Friedenreich1). More precisely, there are some criteria that explain how good a PAQ is at the individual level and illustrate whether the questionnaire is good for clinical purposes. To compare two measurements methods, a Bland–Altman plot or ‘difference plot’ might be used. A wide limit of agreement in this method represents PAQ are not suitable for the clinical and individual purpose. Acceptable limit of agreement is defined as a 10 % of mean difference, for example, in the study by Bonn et al.(Reference Bonn, Lagerros and Christensen65), the Questionnaire d’Activité Physique Saint-Etienne questionnaire underestimated TEE by 1498 kJ/d (358 kcal/d) with limit of agreement –1075 to 1625 which means that the Questionnaire d’Activité Physique Saint-Etienne has wide limit of agreement for this purpose(Reference Neilson, Robson and Friedenreich1). In the small number of questionnaires validated against DLW, few studies have demonstrated Spearman correlation coefficients above 0·60 (Recent Physical Activity Questionnaire (r 0·67)(Reference Besson, Brage and Jakes66), Multimedia Activity Recall for Children and Adolescents (r 0·7)(Reference Foley, Maddison and Rush67), Self-Administered Physical Activity Checklist (r 0·6)(Reference Ramírez-Marrero, Smith and Sherman68), Minnesota Leisure Time Physical Activity Questionnaire (r 0·73)(Reference Slinde, Arvidsson and Sjoberg69), 3-d activity registration (r 0·98) and Japan Arteriosclerosis Longitudinal Study Physical Activity Questionnaire (r 0·742)(Reference Ishikawa-Takata, Naito and Tanaka70)).

To estimate AEE, we did not find any PAQ as a suitable measure. Moreover, none of the questionnaires estimating AEE showed acceptable correlation with DLW. Subgroup analyses showed that, in the AEEPAQ group, the WMD was influenced by age, disease status, BMI and BF %.

All the studies included in the review by Neilson et al.(Reference Neilson, Robson and Friedenreich1) were evaluated based on the two methods of finding a good PAQ for TEE and AEE estimation: correlation coefficient and mean difference. Also, these studies were divided into two groups: the first group included AEE and DLW, and the second group was composed of TEE and DLW. The emphasis in the review by Neilson et al.(Reference Neilson, Robson and Friedenreich1) was on the first group. Furthermore, in another study by Prince et al.(Reference Prince, Adamo and Hamel23), only AEE was compared with DLW. In our study, the difference between TEEDLW – TEEPAQ and AEEDLW – AEEPAQ was both evaluated and the included PAQ were further assessed using a classification based on their types. Previous reviews were limited by small sample sizes(Reference Neilson, Robson and Friedenreich1), sex (they included studies conducted exclusively on women) and age(Reference Neilson, Robson and Friedenreich1,Reference Prince, Adamo and Hamel23) . In our study, however, we did not have any limitation regarding these parameters.

Studies used both predicted and measured (assessed by indirect calorimetry) RMR for estimating TEE and AEE, but as PAQ are considered as feasible approaches to be used in epidemiological studies, it is more sensible to use predicted RMR (RMRp) rather than measured RMR(Reference Slinde, Arvidsson and Sjöberg71). To reduce the level of over and underestimation of TEE and AEE that are blinded to the use of PAQ in different population with diverse specifications, the best PAQ with the lowest mean differences with DLW should be identified and utilised in epidemiological studies.

There are several causes for over and underestimation of TEE and AEE that are measured with PAQ. First, most equations used to measure predicted RMR, overestimated the BMR compared with the indirect calorimetry, including Schofield(Reference Schofield72), Henry et al.(Reference Henry, Dyer and Ghusain-Choueiri73), WHO(74), Schofield BW (body weight) and ht (height)(Reference Schofield72) and WHO BW and ht(74) (in these equations, age is an essential parameter and some of them need height or weight for calculating RMR). On the other hand, Molnar’s equation(Reference Molnár, Jeges and Erhardt75) yielded a lower RMR compared with the indirect calorimetry. In fact, use of this equation is one of the important factors leading to an underestimation in TEE(Reference Prince, Adamo and Hamel23). Of the forty-six PAQ types which were assessed in our study, twenty-five underestimated and twenty-one overestimated TEE. Therefore, both underreporting and overreporting of activities were observed with respect to mean difference of (TEEDLW − TEEPAQ) and (AEEDLW − AEEPAQ). This pattern is inconsistent with self-reported food intake questionnaires in which underreporting is far more common. Second, consistent with our findings, Neilson et al.(Reference Neilson, Robson and Friedenreich1) revealed that lower body weight was associated with smaller mean differences between AEEPAQ and TEEDLW. Likewise, the study by Walsh et al.(Reference Walsh, Hunter and Sirikul42) demonstrated that the order of TEE overestimation (large mean differences between TEEPAQ and TEEDLW) in premenopausal women from highest to lowest was observed in overweight black, overweight white, lean white and lean black women. In fact, for overweight women, the TEE was overestimated 49 % more than normal weight control subjects(Reference Walsh, Hunter and Sirikul42). After weight loss, the TEE overestimation in white women was reduced by 48 %, whereas it did not significantly change in black women(Reference Walsh, Hunter and Sirikul42). Therefore, PAQ may not be a suitable tool for estimating TEE in black women. Another study conducted in obese women reported a TEE overestimation but following a 12-week weight-reducing diet, the participants underestimated TEE (the mean difference decreased from 205 kJ/d to 50 kJ/d). Third, all of the included articles used metabolic equivalent values for calculating TEE except for the studies by Barnard et al.(Reference Barnard, Tapsell and Davies76) and Bonnefoy et al.(Reference Bonnefoy, Normand and Pachiaudi35) (that used the physical activity level) and Walsh et al.(Reference Walsh, Hunter and Sirikul42) (that used the instructions described in the study by Montoye et al.)(Reference Montoye, Kemper and Saris77). In most PAQ, the use of metabolic equivalent values for estimating the energy expenditure of a particular activity is considered a limitation(Reference Walsh, Hunter and Sirikul42). When the metabolic equivalent value is administered for a specific activity, the same energy cost per kg of body weight is calculated for all participants, regardless of differences in metabolic rate and this might be the reason attributed to the decrease in TEE overestimation in obese women after weight loss(Reference Walsh, Hunter and Sirikul42).

For TEE, we observed that only two PAQ had the least mean difference with DLW and none of the PAQ showed good measure of AEE. This is because the magnitude of difference between PAQ and DLW estimates of TEE and AEE depends on some factors including the type of PAQ, the sex of the population on which the questionnaire was used and the number of activities measured by the PAQ. For instance, when the 7D-PAR was used, mean daily EE was overestimated in women while it was underestimated in men(Reference Neilson, Robson and Friedenreich1). Also, for the questionnaires Tecumseh Occupational (past year) and Minnesota Leisure Time (past month) which measured sleep and general activities, when watching television, reading and childcare activities were ignored from EE calculated by these questionnaires, an excellent agreement with DLW measure of TEE was obtained(Reference Conway, Irwin and Ainsworth36). As some PAQ do not estimate all physical activity especially in low-intensity level, an underreporting of AEE is anticipated(Reference Prince, Adamo and Hamel23). However, some PAQ like IPAQ and Physical Activity Questionnaire for Adolescents can capture low- to high-intensity level physical activities and the underreporting of TEE in these questionnaires is compensated by overreporting of vigorous physical activity(Reference Arvidsson, Slinde and Hulthén78).

In conclusion, our meta-analysis identified PAQ (Active-Q) and 3-d PA diaries that had sufficient validity for measuring TEE based on the mean correspondence in group level. However, as each of these questionnaires was used only in one study, we may conclude that this finding might be due to a chance and requires further verification. The present study provides evidence highlighting that the majority of PAQ compared with DLW might not be qualified tools for estimating TEE or AEE. Therefore, it is recommended that until further research is performed to investigate the agreement between direct and indirect measures of TEE and AEE, the use of either Active-Q and 3-d PA diaries or direct measurement methods in epidemiological studies might yield more reliable findings.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all research staff involved in the study, and Tehran University of Medical Science for financial support.

This article was financially supported by Tehran University of Medical Science.

The authors contributed equally to this work.

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Supplementary material

For supplementary material referred to in this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114520003049

References

Neilson, HK, Robson, PJ, Friedenreich, CM, et al. (2008) Estimating activity energy expenditure: how valid are physical activity questionnaires? Am J Clin Nutr 87, 279–291.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Donahoo, WT, Levine, JA & Melanson, EL (2004) Variability in energy expenditure and its components. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 7, 599–605.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Speakman, JR & Westerterp, KR (2010) Associations between energy demands, physical activity, and body composition in adult humans between 18 and 96 y of age. Am J Clin Nutr 92, 826–834.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, J & Siegrist, J (2012) Physical activity and risk of cardiovascular disease—a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Int J Environ Res Public Health 9, 391–407.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siervo, M, Oggioni, C, Lara, J, et al. (2015) Age-related changes in resting energy expenditure in normal weight, overweight and obese men and women. Maturitas 80, 406–413.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Milanović, Z, Pantelić, S, Trajković, N, et al. (2013) Age-related decrease in physical activity and functional fitness among elderly men and women. Clin Interv Aging 8, 549.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, KD, Heymsfield, SB, Kemnitz, JW, et al. (2012) Energy balance and its components: implications for body weight regulation. Am J Clin Nutr 95, 989–994.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hu, FB, Leitzmann, MF, Stampfer, MJ, et al. (2001) Physical activity and television watching in relation to risk for type 2 diabetes mellitus in men. Arch Intern Med 161, 1542–1548.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bassuk, SS & Manson, JE (2005) Epidemiological evidence for the role of physical activity in reducing risk of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. J Appl Physiol (1985) 99, 1193–1204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moses, A, Slater, C, Preston, T, et al. (2004) Reduced total energy expenditure and physical activity in cachectic patients with pancreatic cancer can be modulated by an energy and protein dense oral supplement enriched with n-3 fatty acids. Br J Cancer 90, 996.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Uehara, M, Plank, LD & Hill, GL (1999) Components of energy expenditure in patients with severe sepsis and major trauma: a basis for clinical care. Crit Care Med 27, 1295–1302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hunter, GR, Wetzstein, CJ, Fields, DA, et al. (2000) Resistance training increases total energy expenditure and free-living physical activity in older adults. J Appl Physiol (1985) 89, 977–984.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Speakman, J (1997) Doubly Labelled Water: Theory and Practice. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
Westerterp, KR (2008) Physical activity as determinant of daily energy expenditure. Physiol Behav 93, 1039–1043.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Craig, CL, Marshall, AL, Sjöström, M, et al. (2003) International physical activity questionnaire: 12-country reliability and validity. Med Sci Sports Exerc 35, 1381–1395.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fujii, H, Yamamoto, S, Takeda-Imai, F, et al. (2011) Validity and applicability of a simple questionnaire for the estimation of total and domain-specific physical activity. Diabetol Int 2, 47–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Department of Health and Human Services (1996) Physical Activity and Health: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: USDHSS, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Google Scholar
Montoye, HJ, Kemper, HCG, Saris, WHM, et al. (1996) Measuring Physical Activity and Energy Expenditure. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.Google Scholar
Wendel-Vos, GW, Schuit, AJ, Saris, WH, et al. (2003) Reproducibility and relative validity of the short questionnaire to assess health-enhancing physical activity. J Clin Epidemiol 56, 1163–1169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dhurandhar, NV, Schoeller, D, Brown, AW, et al. (2015) Energy balance measurement: when something is not better than nothing. Int J Obes 39, 1109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neilson, HK, Robson, PJ, Friedenreich, CM, et al. (2008) Estimating activity energy expenditure: how valid are physical activity questionnaires? Am J Clin Nutr 87, 279–291.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Melanson, EL Jr, Freedson, PS & Blair, S (1996) Physical activity assessment: a review of methods. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 36, 385–396.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prince, SA, Adamo, KB, Hamel, ME, et al. (2008) A comparison of direct versus self-report measures for assessing physical activity in adults: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 5, 56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herzog, R, Álvarez-Pasquin, MJ, Díaz, C, et al. (2013) Are healthcare workers’ intentions to vaccinate related to their knowledge, beliefs and attitudes? A systematic review. BMC Public Health 13, 154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Higgins, JPT, Thompson, SG, Deeks, JJ, et al. (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327, 557–560.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mantel, N & Haenszel, W (1959) Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 22, 719–748.Google ScholarPubMed
Arvidsson, D, Slinde, F & Hulthen, L (2005) Physical activity questionnaire for adolescents validated against doubly labelled water. Eur J Clin Nutr 59, 376–383.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bonn, SE, Trolle Lagerros, Y, Christensen, SE, et al. (2012) Active-Q: validation of the web-based physical activity questionnaire using doubly labeled water. J Med Internet Res 14, e29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slinde, F, Arvidsson, D, Sjoberg, A, et al. (2003) Minnesota Leisure Time Activity Questionnaire and doubly labeled water in adolescents. Med Sci Sports Exerc 35, 1923–1928.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rothenberg, E, Bosaeus, I, Lernfelt, B, et al. (1998) Energy intake and expenditure: validation of a diet history by heart rate monitoring, activity diary and doubly labeled water. Eur J Clin Nutr 52, 832–838.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Löf, M, Hannestad, U & Forsum, E (2002) Assessing physical activity of women of childbearing age. Ongoing work to develop and evaluate simple methods. Food Nutr Bull 23, Suppl. 3, 30–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lof, M, Hannestad, U & Forsum, E (2003) Comparison of commonly used procedures, including the doubly-labelled water technique, in the estimation of total energy expenditure of women with special reference to the significance of body fatness. Br J Nutr 90, 961–968.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hagfors, L, Westerterp, K, Skoldstam, L, et al. (2005) Validity of reported energy expenditure and reported intake of energy, protein, sodium and potassium in rheumatoid arthritis patients in a dietary intervention study. Eur J Clin Nutr 59, 238–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnard, J, Tapsell, LC, Davies, P, et al. (2002) Relationship of high energy expenditure and variation in dietary intake with reporting accuracy on 7 day food records and diet histories in a group of healthy adult volunteers. Eur J Clin Nutr 56, 358–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonnefoy, M, Normand, S, Pachiaudi, C, et al. (2001) Simultaneous validation of ten physical activity questionnaires in older men: a doubly labeled water study. J Am Geriatr Soc 49, 28–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Conway, JM, Irwin, ML & Ainsworth, BE (2002) Estimating energy expenditure from the Minnesota Leisure Time Physical Activity and Tecumseh Occupational Activity questionnaires – a doubly labeled water validation. J Clin Epidemiol 55, 392–399.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mahabir, S, Baer, DJ, Giffen, C, et al. (2006) Comparison of energy expenditure estimates from 4 physical activity questionnaires with doubly labeled water estimates in postmenopausal women. Am J Clin Nutr 84, 230–236.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mâsse, LC, Fulton, JE, Watson, KB, et al. (2012) Comparing the validity of 2 physical activity questionnaire formats in African-American and Hispanic women. J Phys Act Health 9, 237–248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Racette, SB, Schoeller, DA & Kushner, RF (1995) Comparison of heart rate and physical activity recall with doubly labeled water in obese women. Med Sci Sports Exerc 27, 126–133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ramírez-Marrero, FA, Smith, BA, Sherman, WM, et al. (2005) Comparison of methods to estimate physical activity and energy expenditure in African American children. Int J Sports Med 26, 363–371.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Staten, LK, Taren, DL, Howell, WH, et al. (2001) Validation of the Arizona Activity Frequency Questionnaire using doubly labeled water. Med Sci Sports Exerc 33, 1959–1967.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walsh, MC, Hunter, GR, Sirikul, B, et al. (2004) Comparison of self-reported with objectively assessed energy expenditure in black and white women before and after weight loss. Am J Clin Nutr 79, 1013–1039.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Washburn, RA, Jacobsen, DJ, Sonko, BJ, et al. (2003) The validity of the Stanford Seven-Day Physical Activity Recall in young adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 35, 1374–1380.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Starling, RD, Matthews, DE, Ades, PA, et al. (1999) Assessment of physical activity in older individuals: a doubly labeled water study. J Appl Physiol (1985) 86, 2090–2096.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seale, JL, Klein, G, Friedmann, J, et al. (2002) Energy expenditure measured by doubly labeled water, activity recall, and diet records in the rural elderly. Nutrition 18, 568–573.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leenders, NY, Sherman, WM, Nagaraja, H, et al. (2001) Evaluation of methods to assess physical activity in free-living conditions. Med Sci Sports Exerc 33, 1233–1240.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paul, DR, Rhodes, DG, Kramer, M, et al. (2005) Validation of a food frequency questionnaire by direct measurement of habitual ad libitum food intake. Am J Epidemiol 162, 806–814.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Irwin, ML, Ainsworth, BE & Conway, JM (2001) Estimation of energy expenditure from physical activity measures: determinants of accuracy. Obes Res 9, 517–525.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Delikanaki-Skaribas, E, Trail, M, Wong, WW, et al. (2009) Daily energy expenditure, physical activity, and weight loss in Parkinson’s disease patients. Mov Disord 24, 667–671.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neuhouser, ML, Di, C, Tinker, LF, et al. (2013) Physical activity assessment: biomarkers and self-report of activity-related energy expenditure in the WHI. Am J Epidemiol 177, 576–585.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Csizmadi, I, Neilson, HK, Kopciuk, KA, et al. (2014) The Sedentary Time and Activity Reporting Questionnaire (STAR-Q): reliability and validity against doubly labeled water and 7-day activity diaries. Am J Epidemiol 180, 424–435.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foley, LS, Maddison, R, Rush, E, et al. (2013) Doubly labeled water validation of a computerized use-of-time recall in active young people. Metabolism 62, 163–169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tanhoffer, RA, Tanhoffer, AI, Raymond, J, et al. (2012) Comparison of methods to assess energy expenditure and physical activity in people with spinal cord injury. J Spinal Cord Med 35, 35–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Besson, H, Brage, S, Jakes, RW, et al. (2010) Estimating physical activity energy expenditure, sedentary time, and physical activity intensity by self-report in adults. Am J Clin Nutr 91, 106–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fuller, Z, Horgan, G, O’Reilly, LM, et al. (2008) Comparing different measures of energy expenditure in human subjects resident in a metabolic facility. Eur J Clin Nutr 62, 560–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sridharan, S, Wong, J, Vilar, E, et al. (2016) Comparison of energy estimates in chronic kidney disease using doubly-labelled water. J Hum Nutr Diet 29, 59–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, B, Woo, J, Tang, N, et al. (2001) Assessment of total energy expenditure in a Chinese population by a physical activity questionnaire: examination of validity. Int J Food Sci Nutr 52, 269–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corder, K, Brage, S, Wright, A, et al. (2010) Physical activity energy expenditure of adolescents in India. Obesity 18, 2212–2219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Philippaerts, R, Westerterp, K & Lefevre, J (1999) Doubly labeled water validation of three physical activity questionnaires. Int J Sports Med 20, 284–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, G & Westerterp, KR (2008) Assessment of the physical activity level with two questions: validation with doubly labeled water. Int J Obes 32, 1031–1033.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ishikawa-Takata, K, Naito, Y, Tanaka, S, et al. (2011) Use of doubly labeled water to validate a physical activity questionnaire developed for the Japanese population. J Epidemiol 21, 114–121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pietilainen, KH, Korkeila, M, Bogl, LH, et al. (2010) Inaccuracies in food and physical activity diaries of obese subjects: complementary evidence from doubly labeled water and co-twin assessments. Int J Obes 34, 437–445.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Conway, JM, Seale, JL, Jacobs, DR, et al. (2002) Comparison of energy expenditure estimates from doubly labeled water, a physical activity questionnaire, and physical activity records. Am J Clin Nutr 75, 519–525.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sridharan, S, Wong, J, Vilar, E, et al. (2016) Comparison of energy estimates in chronic kidney disease using doubly-labelled water. J Hum Nutr Diet 29, 59–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bonn, SE, Lagerros, YT, Christensen, SE, et al. (2012) Active-Q: validation of the web-based physical activity questionnaire using doubly labeled water. J Med Internet Res 14, e29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Besson, H, Brage, S, Jakes, RW, et al. (2010) Estimating physical activity energy expenditure, sedentary time, and physical activity intensity by self-report in adults. Am J Clin Nutr 91, 106–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foley, LS, Maddison, R, Rush, E, et al. (2013) Doubly labeled water validation of a computerized use-of-time recall in active young people. Metab Clin Exp 62, 163–169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ramírez-Marrero, F, Smith, B, Sherman, W, et al. (2005) Comparison of methods to estimate physical activity and energy expenditure in African American children. Int J Sports Med 26, 363–371.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slinde, F, Arvidsson, D, Sjoberg, A, et al. (2003) Minnesota leisure time activity questionnaire and doubly labeled water in adolescents. Med Sci Sports Exerc 35, 1923–1928.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ishikawa-Takata, K, Naito, Y, Tanaka, S, et al. (2011) Use of doubly labeled water to validate a physical activity questionnaire developed for the Japanese population. J Epidemiol 21, 114–121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slinde, F, Arvidsson, D & Sjöberg, A, et al. (2003) Minnesota leisure time activity questionnaire and doubly labeled water in adolescents. Med Sci Sports Exerc 35, 1923–1928.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schofield, W (1985) Predicting basal metabolic rate, new standards and review of previous work. Hum Nutr Clin Nutr 39, 5–41.Google ScholarPubMed
Henry, C, Dyer, S & Ghusain-Choueiri, A (1999) New equations to estimate basal metabolic rate in children aged 10–15 years. Eur J Clin Nutr 53, 134–142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
World Health Organization (1985) Energy and Protein Requirements: Report of a Joint FAO/WHO/UNU Expert Consultation (WHO Technical Report Series, no 724). Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
Molnár, D, Jeges, S, Erhardt, E, et al. (1995) Measured and predicted resting metabolic rate in obese and nonobese adolescents. J Pediatr 127, 571–577.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnard, J, Tapsell, LC, Davies, P, et al. (2002) Relationship of high energy expenditure and variation in dietary intake with reporting accuracy on 7 day food records and diet histories in a group of healthy adult volunteers. Eur J Clin Nutr 56, 358–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montoye, HJ, Kemper, HC, Saris, WH, et al. (1996) Measuring Physical Activity and Energy Expenditure. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.Google Scholar
Arvidsson, D, Slinde, F & Hulthén, L (2005) Physical activity questionnaire for adolescents validated against doubly labelled water. Eur J Clin Nutr 59, 376–383.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Csizmadi, I, Neilson, HK, Kopciuk, KA, et al. (2014) The Sedentary Time and Activity Reporting Questionnaire (STAR-Q): reliability and validity against doubly labeled water and 7-day activity diaries. Am J Epidemiol 180, 424–435.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fuller, Z, Horgan, G, O’Reilly, L, et al. (2008) Comparing different measures of energy expenditure in human subjects resident in a metabolic facility. Eur J Clin Nutr 62, 560–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mâsse, LC, Fulton, JE, Watson, KB, et al. (2012) Comparing the validity of 2 physical activity questionnaire formats in African-American and Hispanic women. J Phys Act Health 9, 237–248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Staten, LK, Taren, DL, Howell, WH, et al. (2001) Validation of the Arizona Activity Frequency Questionnaire using doubly labeled water. Med Sci Sports Exerc 33, 1959–1967.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tanhoffer, RA, Tanhoffer, AI, Raymond, J, et al. (2012) Comparison of methods to assess energy expenditure and physical activity in people with spinal cord injury. J Spinal Cord Med 35, 35–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Washburn, RA, Jacobsen, DJ, Sonko, BJ, et al. (2003) The validity of the Stanford Seven-Day Physical Activity Recall in young adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 35, 1374–1380.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Starling, RD, Matthews, DE, Ades, PA, et al. (1999) Assessment of physical activity in older individuals: a doubly labeled water study. J Appl Physiol (1985) 86, 2090–2096.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seale, JL, Klein, G, Friedmann, J, et al. (2002) Energy expenditure measured by doubly labeled water, activity recall, and diet records in the rural elderly. Nutrition 18, 568–573.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Philippaerts, RM, Westerterp, KR & Lefevre, J (1999) Doubly labelled water validation of three physical activity questionnaires. Int J Sports Med 20, 284–289.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leenders, N, Sherman, WM, Nagaraja, H, et al. (2001) Evaluation of methods to assess physical activity in free-living conditions. Med Sci Sports Exerc 33, 1233–1240.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Irwin, ML, Ainsworth, BE & Conway, JM (2001) Estimation of energy expenditure from physical activity measures: determinants of accuracy. Obesity 9, 517–525.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hagfors, L, Westerterp, K, Sköldstam, L, et al. (2005) Validity of reported energy expenditure and reported intake of energy, protein, sodium and potassium in rheumatoid arthritis patients in a dietary intervention study. Eur J Clin Nutr 59, 238–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lof, M, Hannestad, U & Forsum, E (2003) Comparison of commonly used procedures, including the doubly-labelled water technique, in the estimation of total energy expenditure of women with special reference to the significance of body fatness. Br J Nutr 90, 961–968.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corder, K, Brage, S, Wright, A, et al. (2010) Physical activity energy expenditure of adolescents in India. Obesity 18, 2212–2219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Delikanaki-Skaribas, E, Trail, M, Wong, WWL, et al. (2009) Daily energy expenditure, physical activity, and weight loss in Parkinson’s disease patients. Mov Disord 24, 667–671.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johansson, G & Westerterp, K (2008) Assessment of the physical activity level with two questions: validation with doubly labeled water. Int J Obes 32, 1031.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, B, Woo, J, Tang, N, et al. (2001) Assessment of total energy expenditure in a Chinese population by a physical activity questionnaire: examination of validity. Int J Food Sci Nutr 52, 269–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neuhouser, ML, Di, C, Tinker, LF, et al. (2013) Physical activity assessment: biomarkers and self-report of activity-related energy expenditure in the WHI. Am J Epidemiol 177, 576–585.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Colbert, LH, Matthews, CE, Havighurst, TC, et al. (2011) Comparative validity of physical activity measures in older adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 43, 867.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lof, M, Hannestad, U & Forsum, E (2002) Assessing physical activity of women of childbearing age. Ongoing work to develop and evaluate simple methods. Food Nutr Bull 23, Suppl. 3, 30–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pietiläinen, K, Korkeila, M, Bogl, L, et al. (2010) Inaccuracies in food and physical activity diaries of obese subjects: complementary evidence from doubly labeled water and co-twin assessments. Int J Obes 34, 437.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bonn, SE, Lagerros, YT, Christensen, SE, et al. (2012) Active-Q: validation of the web-based physical activity questionnaire using doubly labeled water. J Med Int Res 14, e29.Google ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Table 1. Characteristics of the studies included into the meta-analysis (Numbers and percentages; mean values and standard deviations)

Figure 1

Table 2. Summary of results for the difference in total energy expenditure (TEE) means between physical activity questionnaires (PAQ) and doubly labelled water (DLW)* (Mean values and standard deviations)

Figure 2

Table 3. Summary of results from difference in activity energy expenditure (AEE) means between physical activity questionnaires (PAQ) and doubly labelled water (DLW)* (Mean values and standard deviations)

Figure 3

Fig. 1. Study selection process. TEE, total energy expenditure; AEE, activity energy expenditure; PAQ, physical activity questionnaire.

Figure 4

Fig. 2. Forest plot of mean differences of total energy expenditure (TEE) measured by the doubly labelled water method and TEE measured using physical activity questionnaires. WMD, weighted mean difference.

Figure 5

Fig. 3. Forest plot of mean differences of activity energy expenditure (AEE) measured by the doubly labelled water method and AEE measured using physical activity questionnaires. WMD, weighted mean difference.

Figure 6

Table 4. Agreement between physical activity questionnaire (PAQ) and doubly labelled water (DLW) estimates of total energy expenditure (TEE) stratified by PAQ type (Mean values and 95 % confidence intervals)

Figure 7

Table 5. Agreement between physical activity questionnaire (PAQ) and doubly labelled water (DLW) estimates of activity energy expenditure (AEE) stratified by PAQ type (Mean values and 95 % confidence intervals)

Figure 8

Table 6. Subgroup analysis of mean differences between physical activity questionnaire (PAQ) and doubly labelled water (DLW) estimates of total energy expenditure (TEE) stratified by identified study characteristics (Mean values and 95 % confidence intervals)

Figure 9

Table 7. Subgroup analysis of mean differences between physical activity questionnaire (PAQ) and doubly labelled water (DLW) estimates of Activity energy expenditure (AEE) stratified by identified study characteristics (Mean values and 95 % confidence intervals)

Supplementary material: File

Sharifzadeh et al. supplementary material

Table S1

Download Sharifzadeh et al. supplementary material(File)
File 43.2 KB