Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21242302›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2011

Alternative methods of accounting for underreporting and overreporting when measuring dietary intake-obesity relations.

Michelle A Mendez, Barry M Popkin, Genevieve Buckland, Helmut Schroder, Pilar Amiano, Aurelio Barricarte, José-María Huerta, José R Quirós, María-José Sánchez, Carlos A González

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 109 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
109citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

109 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Influence of dietary intake and eating patterns on reactive hypoglycemic events in patients postesophagectomy: A prospective observational study using continuous glucose monitoring.Nutrition in clinical practice : official publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition · 2026
    Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

49 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Michelle A MendezCenter for Research in Environmental Epidemiology/Municipal Institute for Medical Research-Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain. mmendez@creal.cat
Barry M Popkin
Genevieve Buckland
Helmut Schroder
Pilar Amiano
Aurelio Barricarte
José-María Huerta
José R Quirós
María-José Sánchez
Carlos A González

Funding

UNC-CH CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH &SUSCEPTIBILITYP30ES010126 · NIEHS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Melissa A. Troester · 2001 to 2026
$36.3M
Carolina Population CenterR24HD050924 · NICHD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI MORGAN, SAMUEL PHILIP · 2005 to 2014
$10.0M
NICHD NIH HHS R24 HD050924NIEHS NIH HHS P30 ES010126
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Misreporting characterized by the reporting of implausible energy intakes may undermine the valid estimation of diet-disease relations, but the methods to best identify and account for misreporting are unknown. The present study compared how alternate approaches affected associations between selected dietary factors and body mass index (BMI) by using data from the European Prospective Investigation Into Cancer and Nutrition-Spain. A total of 24,332 women and 15,061 men 29-65 years of age recruited from 1992 to 1996 for whom measured height and weight and validated diet history data were available were included. Misreporters were identified on the basis of disparities between reported energy intakes and estimated requirements calculated using the original Goldberg method and 2 alternatives: one that substituted basal metabolic rate equations that are more valid at higher BMIs and another that used doubly labeled water-predicted total energy expenditure equations. Compared with results obtained using the original method, underreporting was considerably lower and overreporting higher with alternative methods, which were highly concordant. Accounting for misreporters with all methods yielded diet-BMI relations that were more consistent with expectations; alternative methods often strengthened associations. For example, among women, multivariable-adjusted differences in BMI for the highest versus lowest vegetable intake tertile (β = 0.37 (standard error, 0.07)) were neutral after adjusting with the original method (β = 0.01 (standard error, 07)) and negative using the predicted total energy expenditure method with stringent cutoffs (β = -0.15 (standard error, 0.07)). Alternative methods may yield more valid associations between diet and obesity-related outcomes.

Indexed as

AdultDiet RecordsEnergy IntakeSelf DisclosureAgedAnalysis of VarianceBody Mass IndexChi-Square DistributionEpidemiologic MethodsExerciseFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicLinear ModelsMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID21242302
PMCPMC3139974

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.