Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26468491›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of nutrition2015

Addressing Current Criticism Regarding the Value of Self-Report Dietary Data.

Amy F Subar, Laurence S Freedman, Janet A Tooze, Sharon I Kirkpatrick, Carol Boushey, Marian L Neuhouser, Frances E Thompson, Nancy Potischman, Patricia M Guenther, Valerie Tarasuk and 2 more

Abstract read
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 610 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
610citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

610 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

550 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Amy F SubarDivisions of Cancer Control and Population Sciences and subara@mail.nih.gov.
Laurence S FreedmanBiostatistics Unit, Gertner Institute for Epidemiology and Health Policy Research, Tel Hashomer, Israel;
Janet A ToozeWake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC;
Sharon I KirkpatrickSchool of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada;
Carol BousheyCancer Epidemiology Program, University of Hawaii Cancer Center, Honolulu, HI;
Marian L NeuhouserPublic Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA;
Frances E ThompsonDivisions of Cancer Control and Population Sciences and.
Nancy PotischmanCancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD;
Patricia M GuentherDepartment of Nutrition and Integrative Physiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT; and.
Valerie TarasukDepartment of Nutritional Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Jill ReedyDivisions of Cancer Control and Population Sciences and.
Susan M Krebs-SmithDivisions of Cancer Control and Population Sciences and.

Funding

Nutrition and Physical Activity Assessment Study (NPAAS)R01CA119171 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI Marian L Neuhouser · 2006 to 2026
$14.3M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA119171
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent reports have asserted that, because of energy underreporting, dietary self-report data suffer from measurement error so great that findings that rely on them are of no value. This commentary considers the amassed evidence that shows that self-report dietary intake data can successfully be used to inform dietary guidance and public health policy. Topics discussed include what is known and what can be done about the measurement error inherent in data collected by using self-report dietary assessment instruments and the extent and magnitude of underreporting energy compared with other nutrients and food groups. Also discussed is the overall impact of energy underreporting on dietary surveillance and nutritional epidemiology. In conclusion, 7 specific recommendations for collecting, analyzing, and interpreting self-report dietary data are provided: (1) continue to collect self-report dietary intake data because they contain valuable, rich, and critical information about foods and beverages consumed by populations that can be used to inform nutrition policy and assess diet-disease associations; (2) do not use self-reported energy intake as a measure of true energy intake; (3) do use self-reported energy intake for energy adjustment of other self-reported dietary constituents to improve risk estimation in studies of diet-health associations; (4) acknowledge the limitations of self-report dietary data and analyze and interpret them appropriately; (5) design studies and conduct analyses that allow adjustment for measurement error; (6) design new epidemiologic studies to collect dietary data from both short-term (recalls or food records) and long-term (food-frequency questionnaires) instruments on the entire study population to allow for maximizing the strengths of each instrument; and (7) continue to develop, evaluate, and further expand methods of dietary assessment, including dietary biomarkers and methods using new technologies.

Indexed as

Diet RecordsSelf ReportBeveragesBiomarkersData CollectionDietDiet TherapyEnergy IntakeFoodHumansMental RecallNutrition PolicyPublic HealthSurveys and QuestionnairesBiomarkersdietary assessmentdietary surveillanceenergy intakemeasurement errornutritional epidemiologyunderreporting

Identifiers

PMID26468491
PMCPMC4656907

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.