ArticlePloS one2013
Validity of U.S. nutritional surveillance:National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey caloric energy intake data, 1971-2010.
Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 204 papers, 5 of them syntheses 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
204 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- United States Dietary Trends Since 1800: Lack of Association Between Saturated Fatty Acid Consumption and Non-communicable Diseases.Frontiers in nutrition · 2021Pooled it
- Associations between dietary factors and obesity-related biomarkers in healthy children and adolescents - a systematic review.Nutrition journal · 2017Pooled it
- International Society for the Study of Fatty Acids and Lipids 2016 Debate: For Science-Based Dietary Guidelines on Fats, Meta-Analysis and Systematic Reviews Are Decisive.Annals of nutrition & metabolism · 2017Pooled it
- The State of Evaluation Research on Food Policies to Reduce Obesity and Diabetes Among Adults in the United States, 2000-2011.Preventing chronic disease · 2015Pooled it
- Increased fruit and vegetable intake has no discernible effect on weight loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2014Pooled it
- Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- A Potential Tool for Clinicians; Evaluating a Computer-Led Dietary Assessment Method in Overweight and Obese Women during Weight Loss.Nutrients · 2017Trial
- Nutrient Intake During Diet-Induced Weight Loss and Exercise Interventions in a Randomized Trial in Older Overweight and Obese Adults.The journal of nutrition, health & aging · 2017Trial
- Validity of energy intake estimated by digital photography plus recall in overweight and obese young adults.Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics · 2015Trial
- Article
- A Digital Dietary Assessment Tool for a Multicultural Population (Intake24 Malaysia): Protocol for a Development and Validation Study.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Estimating dietary intake and nutrient adequacy among adults in Saudi Arabia: a population-based assessment.BMC nutrition · 2026Article
- Glyphosate exposure, bone mineral density, osteoporosis, and fractures in the United States population.Journal of environmental health science & engineering · 2026Article
- The diversity and consistency of what and when people eat.Nature metabolism · 2026Article
- Understanding Graduate Students' Perspectives on Food Apps to Inform User-Centered Design: Explanatory Sequential Mixed Methods Survey Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Article
- Reducing bias and enhancing equity in AI-enabled precision nutrition: addressing measurement error across wearables, multiomics, and dietary data.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Association between high fat diet and kidney stones based on the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2007-2020: a cross-sectional study.Translational andrology and urology · 2025Article
144 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
importanceMethodological limitations compromise the validity of U.S. nutritional surveillance data and the empirical foundation for formulating dietary guidelines and public health policies.
objectivesEvaluate the validity of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) caloric intake data throughout its history, and examine trends in the validity of caloric intake estimates as the NHANES dietary measurement protocols evolved.
designValidity of data from 28,993 men and 34,369 women, aged 20 to 74 years from NHANES I (1971-1974) through NHANES 2009-2010 was assessed by: calculating physiologically credible energy intake values as the ratio of reported energy intake (rEI) to estimated basal metabolic rate (BMR), and subtracting estimated total energy expenditure (TEE) from NHANES rEI to create 'disparity values'.
main outcome measures1) Physiologically credible values expressed as the ratio rEI/BMR and 2) disparity values (rEI-TEE).
resultsThe historical rEI/BMR values for men and women were 1.31 and 1.19, (95% CI: 1.30-1.32 and 1.18-1.20), respectively. The historical disparity values for men and women were -281 and -365 kilocalorie-per-day, (95% CI: -299, -264 and -378, -351), respectively. These results are indicative of significant under-reporting. The greatest mean disparity values were -716 kcal/day and -856 kcal/day for obese (i.e., ≥30 kg/m2) men and women, respectively.
conclusionsAcross the 39-year history of the NHANES, EI data on the majority of respondents (67.3% of women and 58.7% of men) were not physiologically plausible. Improvements in measurement protocols after NHANES II led to small decreases in underreporting, artifactual increases in rEI, but only trivial increases in validity in subsequent surveys. The confluence of these results and other methodological limitations suggest that the ability to estimate population trends in caloric intake and generate empirically supported public policy relevant to diet-health relationships from U.S. nutritional surveillance is extremely limited.
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.