Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-30T19:56:27.092Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Systematic review and website presentation of validated dietary assessment tools

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 October 2018

M. Warthon-Medina ,
J. Hooson ,
N. Hancock ,
L.E. Gibson ,
L.A. Bush ,
J. Hutchinson ,
D.C. Greenwood ,
S. Robinson ,
V.J. Burley  and
M. Roe
...Show all authors
M. Warthon-Medina
Affiliation:
Nutritional Epidemiology Group, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK
J. Hooson
Affiliation:
Nutritional Epidemiology Group, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK
N. Hancock
Affiliation:
Nutritional Epidemiology Group, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK
L.E. Gibson
Affiliation:
Nutritional Epidemiology Group, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK
L.A. Bush
Affiliation:
Nutritional Epidemiology Group, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK
J. Hutchinson
Affiliation:
Nutritional Epidemiology Group, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK
D.C. Greenwood
Affiliation:
Division of Biostatistics, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK
S. Robinson
Affiliation:
MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK
V.J. Burley
Affiliation:
Nutritional Epidemiology Group, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK
M. Roe
Affiliation:
Quadram Institute Bioscience, Norwich, NR4 7UA, UK
T. Steer
Affiliation:
MRC Elsie Widdowson Laboratory, Cambridge, CB1 9NL, UK
P.A. Wark
Affiliation:
Centre for Innovative Research Across the Life Course (CIRAL), Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Coventry University, Coventry CV1 5FB, UK.
J.E. Cade
Affiliation:
Nutritional Epidemiology Group, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Type
Abstract
Information
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society , Volume 77 , Issue OCE4: Summer Meeting, 10–12 July 2018, Getting energy balance right , 2018 , E202
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2018 

Accurately measuring diet is critical in understanding the role diet plays on health outcomes, to do this it is important to validate dietary intake methods. However, measuring diet accurately is challenging, therefore it is important to validate dietary intake methods. The DIETary Assessment Tools NETwork () project aims to provide a central resource where researchers can identify, compare and access appropriate dietary assessment tools (DATs), through the Nutritools website(Reference Warthon-Medina, Hooson and Hancock1) (www.nutritools.org). The purpose of this study was to identify validated DATs for inclusion on the Nutritools website.

A systematic review of systematic reviews(Reference Hooson, Hancock and Greenwood2) of validated DATs that measured some aspect of food or nutrient intake was conducted searching seven electronic databases. DAT papers referenced in the reviews were reviewed to determine eligibility for inclusion into the Nutritools website. Differences in mean intake, Bland-Altman limits of agreement (LOA), correlations and percentage agreements results comparing tools with reference method were extracted or calculated based on the published data. From the 51 systematic reviews identified, 63 DATs validated in the UK were included on the Nutritools website, of these, 2 were validated in multiple countries and are classed as worldwide, and the majority were Food Frequency Questionnaires (FFQs). 50 DATs were validated in adults/elderly and 16 were validated in children/adolescents. Over 1500 non-UK papers were identified, from these 64 international tools were extracted, 53 and 17 of which were validated in adults/elderly and children/adolescents, respectively. The summary plot below, produced by the Nutritools website, is a novel visual method of comparing the mean difference in intakes and LOA between DATs and their comparator. In figure 1 most FFQs overestimated energy intake compared to the reference method in UK adults.

Fig. 1. Comparison of energy intake (kcal) between Food Frequency Questionnaire and the reference method validated in UK adults. Circles positions represent mean differences and circle size represents sample size. Arrow heads denote Limits of Agreement. Hover option detail for each study is illustrated on left for first study.

The review has collated validation data on a variety of UK and international DATs which have been incorporated onto the Nutritools website, an invaluable resource for comparing and selecting the most appropriate DAT.

This project was funded by the UK Medical Research Council [Grant number MR/L02019X/1].

References

1.Warthon-Medina, M, Hooson, J, Hancock, N et al. (2017). The Lancet 390, pS94.Google Scholar
2.Hooson, J, Hancock, N, Greenwood, DC et al. (2016). Proc Nutr Soc 75(OCE3).Google Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Comparison of energy intake (kcal) between Food Frequency Questionnaire and the reference method validated in UK adults. Circles positions represent mean differences and circle size represents sample size. Arrow heads denote Limits of Agreement. Hover option detail for each study is illustrated on left for first study.