Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23928492›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2013

Validity of web-based self-reported weight and height: results of the Nutrinet-Santé study.

Camille Lassale, Sandrine Péneau, Mathilde Touvier, Chantal Julia, Pilar Galan, Serge Hercberg, Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 133 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
133citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

133 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Successful weight loss maintenance: A systematic review of weight control registries.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

73 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

7 authors.

Camille LassaleUREN-Nutritional Epidemiology Research Unit, Inserm-U557, Inra-U1125, Université Paris 13, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Cnam, Bobigny, France. c.lassale@uren.smbh.univ-paris13.fr
Sandrine Péneau
Mathilde Touvier
Chantal Julia
Pilar Galan
Serge Hercberg
Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith the growing scientific appeal of e-epidemiology, concerns arise regarding validity and reliability of Web-based self-reported data.

objectiveThe objectives of the present study were to assess the validity of Web-based self-reported weight, height, and resulting body mass index (BMI) compared with standardized clinical measurements and to evaluate the concordance between Web-based self-reported anthropometrics and face-to-face declarations.

methodsA total of 2513 participants of the NutriNet-Santé study in France completed a Web-based anthropometric questionnaire 3 days before a clinical examination (validation sample) of whom 815 participants also responded to a face-to-face anthropometric interview (concordance sample). Several indicators were computed to compare data: paired t test of the difference, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and Bland-Altman limits of agreement for weight, height, and BMI as continuous variables; and kappa statistics and percent agreement for validity, sensitivity, and specificity of BMI categories (normal, overweight, obese).

resultsCompared with clinical data, validity was high with ICC ranging from 0.94 for height to 0.99 for weight. BMI classification was correct in 93% of cases; kappa was 0.89. Of 2513 participants, 23.5% were classified overweight (BMI≥25) with Web-based self-report vs 25.7% with measured data, leading to a sensitivity of 88% and a specificity of 99%. For obesity, 9.1% vs 10.7% were classified obese (BMI≥30), respectively, leading to sensitivity and specificity of 83% and 100%. However, the Web-based self-report exhibited slight underreporting of weight and overreporting of height leading to significant underreporting of BMI (P<.05) for both men and women: -0.32 kg/m² (SD 0.66) and -0.34 kg/m² (SD 1.67), respectively. Mean BMI underreporting was -0.16, -0.36, and -0.63 kg/m² in the normal, overweight, and obese categories, respectively. Almost perfect agreement (ie, concordance) was observed between Web-based and face-to-face report (ICC ranged from 0.96 to 1.00, classification agreement was 98.5%, and kappa 0.97).

conclusionsWeb-based self-reported weight and height data from the NutriNet-Santé study can be considered as valid enough to be used when studying associations of nutritional factors with anthropometrics and health outcomes. Although self-reported anthropometrics are inherently prone to biases, the magnitude of such biases can be considered comparable to face-to-face interview. Web-based self-reported data appear to be an accurate and useful tool to assess anthropometric data.

Indexed as

Body HeightBody WeightFemaleFranceHumansMaleanthropometrybody weightobesityself-reportvalidation studiesweights and measures

Identifiers

PMID23928492
PMCPMC3742400

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.