ArticlePublic health nutrition2013
Evaluation of an FFQ to assess total energy and nutrient intakes in severely obese pregnant women.
Article in Public health nutrition, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of reviews identifying UK validated dietary assessment tools for inclusion on an interactive guided website for researchers: www.nutritools.org.Critical reviews in food science and nutrition · 2020Pooled it
- Article
- Diet and nutritional status during pregnancy.Public health nutrition · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveFFQ are popular instruments for assessing dietary intakes in epidemiological studies but have not been validated for use in severely obese pregnancy. The aim of the present study was to compare nutrient intakes assessed by an FFQ with those obtained from a food diary among severely obese pregnant women.
designComparison of an FFQ containing 170 food items and a food diary for 4 d (three weekdays and one weekend day); absolute agreement was assessed using the paired t test and relative agreement by Pearson/Spearman correlation, crossclassification into tertiles and weighted kappa values.
settingAntenatal metabolic clinic for severely obese women. SUBJECTS: Thirty-one severely obese (BMI at booking ≥ 40.0 kg/m2) and thirty-two lean control (BMI520.0–24.9 kg/m2) pregnant women.
resultsThe findings showed that nutrient intakes estimated by the FFQ were significantly higher than those from the food diary; average correlation was 0.32 in obese and 0.43 in lean women. A mean of 48.5% of obese and 47.3% of lean women were correctly classified, while 12.9% (obese) and 10.0% (lean) were grossly misclassified. Weighted k values ranged from 20.04 to 0.79 in obese women and from 0.16 to 0.78 in lean women.
conclusionsOverall, the relative agreement between the FFQ and food diary was lower in the obese group than in the lean group, but was comparable with earlier studies conducted in pregnant women. The validity assessments suggest that the FFQ is a useful tool for ranking severely obese pregnant women according to the levels of their dietary intake.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.