Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25625814›Full record

ArticleNutrients2015

The comparative validity and reproducibility of a diet quality index for adults: the Australian Recommended Food Score.

Clare E Collins, Tracy L Burrows, Megan E Rollo, May M Boggess, Jane F Watson, Maya Guest, Kerith Duncanson, Kristine Pezdirc, Melinda J Hutchesson

Abstract readValidation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Nutrients, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 118 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
118citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Health risk factors in Australian Stroke Survivors: A latent class analysis.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2024
    Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

58 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

9 authors.

Clare E CollinsNutrition and Dietetics, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, Newcastle 2300, Australia. Clare.Collins@newcastle.edu.au.
Tracy L BurrowsNutrition and Dietetics, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, Newcastle 2300, Australia. Maya.Guest@newcastle.edu.au.
Megan E RolloNutrition and Dietetics, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, Newcastle 2300, Australia. Maya.Guest@newcastle.edu.au.
May M BoggessOccupational Health and Safety, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, Newcastle 2300, Australia. mboggess@asu.edu.
Jane F WatsonNutrition and Dietetics, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, Newcastle 2300, Australia. Maya.Guest@newcastle.edu.au.
Maya GuestPriority Research Centre in Physical Activity and Nutrition, University of Newcastle, Newcastle 2300, Australia. mboggess@asu.edu.
Kerith DuncansonNutrition and Dietetics, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, Newcastle 2300, Australia. Maya.Guest@newcastle.edu.au.
Kristine PezdircNutrition and Dietetics, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, Newcastle 2300, Australia. Maya.Guest@newcastle.edu.au.
Melinda J HutchessonNutrition and Dietetics, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, Newcastle 2300, Australia. Maya.Guest@newcastle.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Adult diet quality indices are shown to predict nutritional adequacy of dietary intake as well as all-cause morbidity and mortality. This study describes the reproducibility and validity of a food-based diet quality index, the Australian Recommended Food Score (ARFS). ARFS was developed to reflect alignment with the Australian Dietary Guidelines and is modelled on the US Recommended Food Score. Dietary intakes of 96 adult participants (31 male, 65 female) age 30 to 75 years were assessed in two rounds, five months apart. Diet was assessed using a 120-question semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire (FFQ). The ARFS diet quality index was derived using a subset of 70 items from the full FFQ. Reproducibility of the ARFS between round one and round two was confirmed by the overall intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.87 (95% CI 0.83, 0.90), which compared favourably to that for the FFQ at 0.85 (95% CI 0.80, 0.89). ARFS was correlated with FFQ nutrient intakes, particularly fiber, vitamin A, beta-carotene and vitamin C (0.53, 95% CI 0.37-0.67), and with mineral intakes, particularly calcium, magnesium and potassium (0.32, 95% CI 0.23-0.40). ARFS is a suitable brief tool to evaluate diet quality in adults and reliably estimates a range of nutrient intakes.

Indexed as

Feeding BehaviorFood QualityRecommended Dietary AllowancesAdultAgedAustraliaDietDiet SurveysFemaleFood, OrganicHumansMaleMiddle AgedNutrition AssessmentReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID25625814
PMCPMC4344560

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.