ArticleJournal of epidemiology2017
Comparison of weighed food record procedures for the reference methods in two validation studies of food frequency questionnaires.
Article in Journal of epidemiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Validation of a semi-quantitative Food Frequency Questionnaire for dietary assessment among adults in Northwest China.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Reproducibility and validity of a food frequency questionnaire for nutrient intakes in the study areas of large-scale cohort studies in Japan.Nagoya journal of medical science · 2025Article
- Opportunities and challenges of lifestyle intervention-based digital therapeutics in LDL-C management: a scoping review.Therapeutic advances in chronic disease · 2025Article
- Nutrition, Overweight, and Cognition in Euthymic Bipolar Individuals Compared to Healthy Controls.Nutrients · 2022Article
- Reproducibility and validity of food group intake in a short food frequency questionnaire for the middle-aged Japanese population.Environmental health and preventive medicine · 2021Article
- A Web-Based 24-H Dietary Recall Could Be a Valid Tool for the Indicative Assessment of Dietary Intake in Older Adults Living in Slovenia.Nutrients · 2019Article
- Measuring food provision in Western Australian long day care (LDC) services: a weighed food record method/protocol at a service level.Nutrition journal · 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
33 authors at 20 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough open-ended dietary assessment methods, such as weighed food records (WFRs), are generally considered to be comparable, differences between procedures may influence outcome when WFRs are conducted independently. In this paper, we assess the procedures of WFRs in two studies to describe their dietary assessment procedures and compare the subsequent outcomes.
methodsWFRs of 12 days (3 days for four seasons) were conducted as reference methods for intake data, in accordance with the study protocol, among a subsample of participants of two large cohort studies. We compared the WFR procedures descriptively. We also compared some dietary intake variables, such as the frequency of foods and dishes and contributing foods, to determine whether there were differences in the portion size distribution and intra- and inter-individual variation in nutrient intakes caused by the difference in procedures.
resultsGeneral procedures of the dietary records were conducted in accordance with the National Health and Nutrition Survey and were the same for both studies. Differences were seen in 1) selection of multiple days (non-consecutive days versus consecutive days); and 2) survey sheet recording method (individual versus family participation). However, the foods contributing to intake of energy and selected nutrients, the portion size distribution, and intra- and inter-individual variation in nutrient intakes were similar between the two studies.
conclusionOur comparison of WFR procedures in two independent studies revealed several differences. Notwithstanding these procedural differences, however, the subsequent outcomes were similar.
Indexed as
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.