Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28993807›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2017

Examining Plausibility of Self-Reported Energy Intake Data: Considerations for Method Selection.

Jinan C Banna, Megan A McCrory, Marie Kainoa Fialkowski, Carol Boushey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 130 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
130citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Understanding the Motivations, Perceptions and Nutritional Implications of Plant-Based Milk Consumption Compared to Dairy-Based Milk.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2026
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

70 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

Jinan C BannaUniversity of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI, United States.
Megan A McCroryBoston University, Boston, MA, United States.
Marie Kainoa FialkowskiUniversity of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI, United States.
Carol BousheyUniversity of Hawaii Cancer Center, Honolulu, HI, United States.

Funding

RESEARCH DESIGN AND BIOSTATISTICS COREU54MD007584 · NIMHD · UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII AT MANOA · PI MOKUAU, NOREEN, SHIRAMIZU, BRUCE T · 2012 to 2018
$21.1M
NIMHD NIH HHS U54 MD007584
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Self-reported dietary intake data contain valuable information and have long been used in the development of nutrition programs and policy. Some degree of measurement error is always present in such data. Biological plausibility, assessed by determining whether self-reported energy intake (rEI) reflects physiological status and physical activity level, must be examined and accounted for before drawing conclusions about intake. Methods that may be used to account for plausibility of rEI include crude methods such as excluding participants reporting EIs at the extremes of a range of intake and individualized methods such as statistical adjustment and applying cutoffs that account for the errors associated with within-participant variation in EI and total energy expenditure (TEE). These approaches allow researchers to determine how accounting for under- and overreporting affects study results and to appropriately address misreporting in drawing conclusions with data collected and in interpreting reported research. In selecting a procedure to assess and account for plausibility of intake, there are a number of key considerations, such as resources available, the dietary-report instrument, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of each method. While additional studies are warranted to recommend one procedure as superior to another, researchers should apply one of the available methods to address the issue of implausible rEI. If no method is applied, then at minimum, mean TEE or rEI/TEE should be reported to allow readers to ascertain the degree of misreporting at a gross level and better interpret the data and results provided.

Indexed as

estimated energy requirementGoldberg cutoffmisreportingplausibilityreported energy intake

Identifiers

PMID28993807
PMCPMC5622407

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.