Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26019244›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of nutrition2015

Using 2 Assessment Methods May Better Describe Dietary Supplement Intakes in the United States.

Holly L Nicastro, Regan L Bailey, Kevin W Dodd

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of nutrition, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
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

3 authors.

Holly L NicastroDivision of Cardiovascular Sciences, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, holly.nicastro@nih.gov.
Regan L BaileyOffice of Dietary Supplements, Office of the Director, and.
Kevin W DoddDivision of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, MD.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOne-half of US adults report using a dietary supplement. NHANES has traditionally assessed dietary supplement use via a 30-d questionnaire but in 2007 added a supplement module to the 24-h dietary recall (24HR).

objectiveWe compared these 2 dietary assessment methods, examined potential biases in the methods, and determined the effect that instrument choice had on estimates of prevalence of multivitamin/multimineral dietary supplement (MVMM) use.

methodsWe described prevalence of dietary supplement use by age, sex, and assessment instrument in 12,285 adults in the United States (>19 y of age) from NHANES 2007-2010.

resultsWhen using data from the questionnaire alone, 29.3% ± 1.0% of men and 35.5% ± 1.0% of women were users of MVMMs, whereas data from the 24HR only produced prevalence estimates of 26.3% ± 1.1% for men and 33.2% ± 1.0% for women. When using data from both instruments combined, 32.3% ± 1.2% of men and 39.5% ± 1.1% of women were classified as MVMM users. Prevalence estimates were significantly higher by 2-9% in all age-sex groups when using information from both instruments combined than when using data from either instrument individually. A digit preference bias and flattened slope phenomenon were observed in responses to the dietary supplement questionnaire. A majority (67%) of MVMMs were captured on both instruments, whereas 19% additional MVMMs were captured on the questionnaire and 14% additional on the 24HR. Of those captured only on the 24HR, 26% had missing label information, whereas only 12% and 9% of those captured on the questionnaire or both, respectively, had missing information.

conclusionsUse of both the dietary supplement questionnaire and the 24HR can provide advantages to researchers over the use of a single instrument and potentially capture a larger fraction of dietary supplement users.

Indexed as

AdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesDietary SupplementsFemaleHumansMaleMental RecallMicronutrientsMiddle AgedNutrition AssessmentNutrition SurveysSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesYoung AdultMicronutrientsdietary assessmentdietary supplementmeasurement errormultivitamin multimineralNHANES

Identifiers

PMID26019244
PMCPMC4478953

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.