Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27609314›Full record

ArticlePublic health nutrition2017

Development of a brief, reliable and valid diet assessment tool for impaired glucose tolerance and diabetes: the UK Diabetes and Diet Questionnaire.

Clare Y England, Janice L Thompson, Russ Jago, Ashley R Cooper, Rob C Andrews

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Public health nutrition, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06722274 (Nutritional Habits Among People With and Without Diabetes in Upper Egypt), which is not on this map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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.

NCT06722274 not yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Nutritional Habits Among People With and Without Diabetes in Upper Egypt

TypeobservationalSponsorAssiut UniversityRan2025 to 2026Enrolled178ConditionsDiabetes Mellitus
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Nutritional Status Measurement Instruments for Diabetes: A Systematic Psychometric Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Clare Y England1Centre for Exercise Nutrition and Health Sciences,School for Policy Studies,8 Priory Road,University of Bristol,Bristol BS8 1TZ,UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0685-0690
Janice L Thompson3School of Sport,Exercise & Rehabilitation Sciences,University of Birmingham,Birmingham,UK.
Russ Jago1Centre for Exercise Nutrition and Health Sciences,School for Policy Studies,8 Priory Road,University of Bristol,Bristol BS8 1TZ,UK.
Ashley R Cooper1Centre for Exercise Nutrition and Health Sciences,School for Policy Studies,8 Priory Road,University of Bristol,Bristol BS8 1TZ,UK.
Rob C Andrews2National Institute for Health Research (NIHR),Bristol Biomedical Research Unit in Nutrition,Diet and Lifestyle,Level 3 University Hospitals Bristol Education and Research Centre,Upper Maudlin Street,Bristol BS2 8AE,UK.
University of Exeter · GBNational Institute for Health Research · GBUniversity of Birmingham · GBUniversity of Bristol · GB

Funding

Department of Health CAT CDRF 10-017Department of Health PB-PG-0610-22352
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveDietary advice is fundamental in the prevention and management of type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Advice is improved by individual assessment but existing methods are time-consuming and require expertise. We developed a twenty-five-item questionnaire, the UK Diabetes and Diet Questionnaire (UKDDQ), for quick assessment of an individual's diet. The present study examined the UKDDQ's repeatability and relative validity compared with 4 d food diaries.

designThe UKDDQ was completed twice with a median 3 d gap (interquartile range=1-7 d) between tests. A 4 d food diary was completed after the second UKDDQ. Diaries were analysed and food groups were mapped on to the UKDDQ. Absolute agreement between total scores was examined using intra-class correlation (ICC). Agreement for individual items was tested with Cohen's weighted kappa (κ w).

settingSouth West of England. SUBJECTS: Adults (n 177, 50·3 % women) with, or at high risk for, T2DM; mean age 55·8 (sd 8·6) years, mean BMI 34·4 (sd 7·3) kg/m2; participants were 91 % White British.

resultsThe UKDDQ showed excellent repeatability (ICC=0·90 (0·82, 0·94)). For individual items, κ w ranged from 0·43 ('savoury pastries') to 0·87 ('vegetables'). Total scores from the UKDDQ and food diaries compared well (ICC=0·54 (0·27, 0·70)). Agreement for individual items varied and was good for 'alcohol' (κ w=0·71) and 'breakfast cereals' (κ w=0·70), with no agreement for 'vegetables' (κ w=0·08) or 'savoury pastries' (κ w=0·09).

conclusionsThe UKDDQ is a new British dietary questionnaire with excellent repeatability. Comparisons with food diaries found agreements similar to those for international dietary questionnaires currently in use. It targets foods and habits important in diabetes prevention and management.

Indexed as

AdultAgedDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Diet RecordsDiet SurveysFemaleGlucose IntoleranceHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited KingdomBrief questionnaireDiabetesDietary assessmentValidation

Identifiers

PMID27609314
PMCPMC5244439
OpenAlexW2510909557

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.