ArticlePloS one
Development and Application of the Remote Food Photography Method to Measure Food Intake in Exclusively Milk Fed Infants: A Laboratory-Based Study.
Article in PloS one. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Modifications to Infant Formula Instructions Improve the Accuracy of Formula Dispensing.Nutrients · 2020Trial
- Adaptation of the Remote Food Photography Method to Assess Infant Intake During Bottle-Feeding of Ready-to-Feed Formula.Maternal & child nutrition · 2025Article
- Review of the validity and feasibility of image-assisted methods for dietary assessment.International journal of obesity (2005) · 2020Review
- Unintentional error in formula preparation and its simulated impact on infant weight and adiposity.Pediatric obesity · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAccurate methods of assessing food intake in infants are needed to assess the relationship between infant feeding practices and risk of childhood obesity. Current methods are either subjective or have limited ability for use beyond clinical research settings.
objectiveTo assess the accuracy of the RFPM to evaluate simulated milk intake including energy, macronutrient, and micronutrient intake compared to direct weighing within a controlled study.
methodsIndividuals were recruited to prepare three 2 fl oz, 4 fl oz, 6 fl oz, and 8 fl oz servings of infant formula and to capture photographs at different stages of preparation (dry powdered formula, prepared formula, and liquid waste) using the SmartIntake® application. Gram weights of the bottles were obtained by the RFPM and direct weighing. Using the United States Department of Agriculture National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, energy, macronutrient, and micronutrient values were generated from gram weights.
resultsIntake of formula prepared from powder measured by the RFPM was equivalent to weighed intake within 7.5% equivalence bounds among all servings and each serving size. The mean difference between methods varied among servings sizes with the RFPM underestimating intake by 1.6 ± 0.4 kcals in 2 fl oz servings, 4.8 ± 0.6 kcals in 4 fl oz servings, and 6.2 ± 1.0 kcals in 6 fl oz servings, and overestimating intake by 0.1 ± 1.2 kcals in 8 fl oz servings. Bland-Altman analysis showed that the RFPM overestimated intake at lower levels food intake and underestimated intake at higher levels. Considering photographs of only the prepared formula bottle and the bottle with formula waste to simulate ready-to-feed formula and human breast milk, intake estimated by the RFPM was equivalent to the directly weighed intake within 7.5% for all servings.
conclusionsThe RFPM has higher accuracy than subjective methods and similar accuracy as compared to the objective methods in estimating simulated intake of milk and formula with lower burden to caregivers. The RFPM is a viable method for measuring intake in exclusively milk fed infants by caregivers in a controlled environment with potential for widespread use in research and clinical practice.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.