Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26508282›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2015

Electronic Dietary Intake Assessment (e-DIA): Comparison of a Mobile Phone Digital Entry App for Dietary Data Collection With 24-Hour Dietary Recalls.

Anna M Rangan, Sarah O'Connor, Valentina Giannelli, Megan Lh Yap, Lie Ming Tang, Rajshri Roy, Jimmy Chun Yu Louie, Lana Hebden, Judy Kay, Margaret Allman-Farinelli

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
12.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

57 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 103 citations in OpenAlex.

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

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

The University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe electronic Dietary Intake Assessment (e-DIA), a digital entry food record mobile phone app, was developed to measure energy and nutrient intake prospectively. This can be used in monitoring population intakes or intervention studies in young adults.

objectiveThe objective was to assess the relative validity of e-DIA as a dietary assessment tool for energy and nutrient intakes using the 24-hour dietary recall as a reference method.

methodsUniversity students aged 19 to 24 years recorded their food and drink intake on the e-DIA for five days consecutively and completed 24-hour dietary recalls on three random days during this 5-day study period. Mean differences in energy, macro-, and micronutrient intakes were evaluated between the methods using paired t tests or Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and correlation coefficients were calculated on unadjusted, energy-adjusted, and deattenuated values. Bland-Altman plots and cross-classification into quartiles were used to assess agreement between the two methods.

resultsEighty participants completed the study (38% male). No significant differences were found between the two methods for mean intakes of energy or nutrients. Deattenuated correlation coefficients ranged from 0.55 to 0.79 (mean 0.68). Bland-Altman plots showed wide limits of agreement between the methods but without obvious bias. Cross-classification into same or adjacent quartiles ranged from 75% to 93% (mean 85%).

conclusionsThe e-DIA shows potential as a dietary intake assessment tool at a group level with good ranking agreement for energy and all nutrients.

Indexed as

dietary assessmentmobile phone appvalidityyoung adult

Identifiers

PMID26508282
PMCPMC4704908
OpenAlexW1843387091

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.