Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27914522›Full record

ArticleCurrent problems in cardiology

The Validity of US Nutritional Surveillance: USDA's Loss-Adjusted Food Availability Data Series 1971-2010.

Edward Archer, Diana M Thomas, Samantha M McDonald, Gregory Pavela, Carl J Lavie, James O Hill, Steven N Blair

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Current problems in cardiology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

7 authors.

Edward Archer
Diana M Thomas
Samantha M McDonald
Gregory Pavela
Carl J Lavie
James O Hill
Steven N Blair

Funding

PILOT STUDY--SUBSTRATE METABOLISM IN EXTREMELY LOW BIRTH WEIGHT INFANTSP30DK048520 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI Edward L Melanson · 1995 to 2026
$32.6M
University of Alabama at Birmingham's Diabetes Research CenterP30DK079626 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI Kirk Michael Habegger · 2013 to 2026
$19.5M
UAB Obesity Training ProgramT32DK062710 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI James O Hill, Brooks C Wingo · 2004 to 2026
$5.5M
Early risk assessment through mathematical modeling of quantitative placental anatomic/structural biomarkersR43HD084277 · NICHD · PLACENTAL ANALYTICS, LLC · PI SALAFIA, CAROLYN M, THOMAS, DIANA MARIA · 2015 to 2015
$135k
NICHD NIH HHS R43 HD084277NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK048520NIDDK NIH HHS T32 DK062710
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the validity of the 1971-2010 United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) loss-adjusted food availability (LAFA) per capita caloric consumption estimates. Estimated total daily energy expenditure (TEE) was calculated for nationally representative samples of US adults, 20-74 years, using the Institute of Medicine's predictive equations with "low-active" (TEE L-ACT) and "sedentary" (TEE SED) physical activity values. TEE estimates were subtracted from LAFA estimates to create disparity values (kcal/d). A validated mathematical model was applied to calculate expected weight change in reference individuals resulting from the disparity. From 1971-2010, the disparity between LAFA and TEE L-ACT varied by 394kcal/d-(P < 0.001), from -205kcal/d (95% CI: -214, -196) to +189kcal/d (95% CI: 168, 209). The disparity between LAFA and TEE SED varied by 412kcal/d (P < 0.001), from -84kcal/d (95% CI: -93, -76) to +328kcal/d (95% CI: 309, 348). Our model suggests that if LAFA estimates were actually consumed, reference individuals would have lost ~1-4kg/y from 1971-1980 (an accumulated loss of ~12 to ~36kg), and gained ~3-7kg/y from 1988-2010 (an accumulated gain of ~42 to ~98kg). These estimates differed from the actual measured increments of 10kg and 9kg in reference men and women, respectively, over the 39-year period. The USDA LAFA data provided inconsistent, divergent estimates of per capita caloric consumption over its 39-year history. The large, variable misestimation suggests that the USDA LAFA per capita caloric intake estimates lack validity and should not be used to inform public policy.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAnthropometryBody WeightEnergy IntakeEnergy MetabolismExerciseFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedModels, BiologicalNutrition SurveysOverweightPopulation SurveillanceUnited States

Identifiers

PMID27914522
PMCPMC5147486

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.