Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26360372›Full record

SynthesisEpidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.)2015

Application of a New Statistical Model for Measurement Error to the Evaluation of Dietary Self-report Instruments.

Laurence S Freedman, Douglas Midthune, Raymond J Carroll, John M Commins, Lenore Arab, David J Baer, James E Moler, Alanna J Moshfegh, Marian L Neuhouser, Ross L Prentice and 6 more

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
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

16 authors.

Laurence S FreedmanFrom the aInformation Management Services, Inc., Rockville, MD; bNational Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; cUniversity Texas A&M, College Station, TX; dUniversity of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA; eUnited States Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, MD; fFred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; and gHarvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA.
Douglas Midthune
Raymond J Carroll
John M Commins
Lenore Arab
David J Baer
James E Moler
Alanna J Moshfegh
Marian L Neuhouser
Ross L Prentice
Donna Rhodes
Donna Spiegelman
Amy F Subar
Lesley F Tinker
Walter Willett
Victor Kipnis

Funding

Nutrition and Physical Activity Assessment Study (NPAAS)R01CA119171 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI Marian L Neuhouser · 2006 to 2026
$14.3M
Use of Biomarkers in Diagnosis, Prognosis, Risk Prediction and Early Detection ofP01CA053996 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI PRENTICE, ROSS L · 1991 to 2015
$9.4M
Measurement Error, Nutrition, Physical Activity and CancerU01CA057030 · NCI · TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY · PI CARROLL, RAYMOND J. · 2015 to 2019
$2.8M
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA053996NCI NIH HHS R01 CA119171NCI NIH HHS U01 CA057030NHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201100001INHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201100002INHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201100003INHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201100004INHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201100046CNIA NIH HHS HHSN271201100004CWHI NIH HHS HHSN268201100001CWHI NIH HHS HHSN268201100002CWHI NIH HHS HHSN268201100003CWHI NIH HHS HHSN268201100004C
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most statistical methods that adjust analyses for dietary measurement error treat an individual's usual intake as a fixed quantity. However, usual intake, if defined as average intake over a few months, varies over time. We describe a model that accounts for such variation and for the proximity of biomarker measurements to self-reports within the framework of a meta-analysis, and apply it to the analysis of data on energy, protein, potassium, and sodium from a set of five large validation studies of dietary self-report instruments using recovery biomarkers as reference instruments. We show that this time-varying usual intake model fits the data better than the fixed usual intake assumption. Using this model, we estimated attenuation factors and correlations with true longer-term usual intake for single and multiple 24-hour dietary recalls (24HRs) and food frequency questionnaires (FFQs) and compared them with those obtained under the "fixed" method. Compared with the fixed method, the estimates using the time-varying model showed slightly larger values of the attenuation factor and correlation coefficient for FFQs and smaller values for 24HRs. In some cases, the difference between the fixed method estimate and the new estimate for multiple 24HRs was substantial. With the new method, while four 24HRs had higher estimated correlations with truth than a single FFQ for absolute intakes of protein, potassium, and sodium, for densities the correlations were approximately equal. Accounting for the time element in dietary validation is potentially important, and points toward the need for longer-term validation studies.

Indexed as

DietModels, StatisticalSelf ReportSurveys and QuestionnairesBiomarkersDiet SurveysHumansBiomarkers

Identifiers

PMID26360372
PMCPMC4898197

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.