A Discussion of the Refutation of Memory-Based Dietary Assessment Methods (M-BMs): The Rhetorical Defense of Pseudoscientific and Inadmissible Evidence.

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.

1. Behavioral primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2018
   Article
2. Cell-Specific "Competition for Calories" Drives Asymmetric Nutrient-Energy Partitioning, Obesity, and Metabolic Diseases in Human and Non-human Animals.Frontiers in physiology · 2018
   Article
3. The Failure to Measure Dietary Intake Engendered a Fictional Discourse on Diet-Disease Relations.Frontiers in nutrition · 2018
   Article
4. The use of implausible data without caveats is misleading.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2017
   Article
5. The NHANES dietary data are physiologically implausible and inadmissible as scientific evidence.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2017
   Article
6. Response by Pase et al to Letters Regarding Article, "Sugar- and Artificially Sweetened Beverages and the Risks of Incident Stroke and Dementia. A Prospective Cohort Study".Stroke · 2017
   Article
7. Low Energy Turnover of Physically Inactive Participants as a Determinant of Insufficient Mineral and Vitamin Intake in NHANES.Nutrients · 2017
   Article
8. Reported Dietary Intake and Food Sources of Zinc, Selenium, and Vitamins A, E and C in the Spanish Population: Findings from the ANIBES Study.Nutrients · 2017
   Article
9. Reported Dietary Intake, Disparity between the Reported Consumption and the Level Needed for Adequacy and Food Sources of Calcium, Phosphorus, Magnesium and Vitamin D in the Spanish Population: Findings from the ANIBES Study.Nutrients · 2017
   Article
10. Commentary: Snap-N-Send: A Valid and Reliable Method for Assessing the Energy Intake of Elite Adolescent Athletes.Frontiers in nutrition · 2017
    Article
11. Commentary on Disparities in Infant Mortality Due to Congenital Anomalies on Guam.Hawai'i journal of medicine & public health : a journal of Asia Pacific Medicine & Public Health · 2016
    Article
12. The Validity of US Nutritional Surveillance: USDA's Loss-Adjusted Food Availability Data Series 1971-2010.Current problems in cardiology
    Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  The Inadmissibility of What We Eat in America and NHANES Dietary Data in Nutrition and Obesity Research and the Scientific Formulation of National Dietary Guidelines.2015
• Comment on
  The Validity of Self-reported Dietary Intake Data: Focus on the "What We Eat In America" Component of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Research Initiative.2015

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as