ArticleThe Journal of nutrition2015
Using 2 Assessment Methods May Better Describe Dietary Supplement Intakes in the United States.
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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Baseline characteristics of participants in the VITamin D and OmegA-3 TriaL (VITAL).Contemporary clinical trials · 2016Trial
- Trial
- Folate intake, tissue levels, and colorectal cancer deaths in a national cohort established before folic acid fortification.European journal of nutrition · 2025Article
- Major Gaps in Understanding Dietary Supplement Use in Health and Disease.Annual review of nutrition · 2023Review
- Trends in Overall and Micronutrient-Containing Dietary Supplement Use in US Adults and Children, NHANES 2007-2018.The Journal of nutrition · 2023Article
- Overview of dietary assessment methods for measuring intakes of foods, beverages, and dietary supplements in research studies.Current opinion in biotechnology · 2021Review
- Comparison of 4 Methods to Assess the Prevalence of Use and Estimates of Nutrient Intakes from Dietary Supplements among US Adults.The Journal of nutrition · 2020Article
- The balance between food and dietary supplements in the general population.The Proceedings of the Nutrition Society · 2019Article
- Best Practices for Dietary Supplement Assessment and Estimation of Total Usual Nutrient Intakes in Population-Level Research and Monitoring.The Journal of nutrition · 2019Review
- Federal Monitoring of Dietary Supplement Use in the Resident, Civilian, Noninstitutionalized US Population, National Health and Nutrition Examination SurveyThe Journal of nutrition · 2018Review
- Comparing Reported Dietary Supplement Intakes between Two 24-Hour Recall Methods: The Automated Self-Administered 24-Hour Dietary Assessment Tool and the Interview-Administered Automated Multiple Pass Method.Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics · 2018Article
- Safe use of high intakes of folic acid: research challenges and paths forward.Nutrition reviews · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.