ArticlePublic health nutrition2018
A national FFQ for the Netherlands (the FFQ-NL1.0): development and compatibility with existing Dutch FFQs.
Article in Public health nutrition, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Modular Digital FFQ for Tibetan Highlanders in Agricultural and Pastoral Communities: Development and Rigorous Multi-Method Validation.Nutrients · 2026Article
- Cohort Profile Update: The Doetinchem Cohort Study 1987-2028--capturing four decades of health and disease.International journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
- Designing a Food Frequency Questionnaire for a Vegetarian Population in Germany by Means of Mixed-Integer Linear Programming.Nutrients · 2026Article
- Dietary habits and compliance with dietary guidelines in patients with established cardiovascular disease.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Nutritional Assessment in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD)-Development of the Groningen IBD Nutritional Questionnaires (GINQ).Nutrients · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIn the Netherlands, various FFQs have been administered in large cohort studies, which hampers comparison and pooling of dietary data. The present study aimed to describe the development of a standardized Dutch FFQ, FFQ-NL1.0, and assess its compatibility with existing Dutch FFQs.
designDutch FFQTOOLTM was used to develop the FFQ-NL1.0 by selecting food items with the largest contributions to total intake and explained variance in intake of energy and thirty-nine nutrients in adults aged 25-69 years from the Dutch National Food Consumption Survey (DNFCS) 2007-2010. Compatibility with the Maastricht-FFQ, Wageningen-FFQ and EPICNL-FFQ was assessed by comparing the number of food items, the covered energy and nutrient intake, and the covered variance in intake.
resultsFFQ-NL1.0 comprised 160 food items, v. 253, 183 and 154 food items for the Maastricht-FFQ, Wageningen-FFQ and EPICNL-FFQ, respectively. FFQ-NL1.0 covered ≥85 % of energy and all nutrients reported in the DNFCS. Covered variance in intake ranged from 57 to 99 % for energy and macronutrients, and from 45 to 93 % for micronutrients. Differences between FFQ-NL1.0 and the other FFQs in covered nutrient intake and covered variance in intake were <5 % for energy and all macronutrients. For micronutrients, differences between FFQ-NL and other FFQs in covered level of intake were <15 %, but differences in covered variance were much larger, the maximum difference being 36 %.
conclusionsThe FFQ-NL1.0 was compatible with other FFQs regarding energy and macronutrient intake. However, compatibility for covered variance of intake was limited for some of the micronutrients. If implemented in existing cohorts, it is advised to administer the old and the new FFQ in combination to derive calibration factors.
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.