ArticlePublic health nutrition2018
Validating fatty acid intake as estimated by an FFQ: how does the 24 h recall perform as reference method compared with the duplicate portion?
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring the link between fatty acids, FADS2 expression, and ADHD using structural equation modeling.European child & adolescent psychiatry · 2026Article
- Sarcopenia modifies the association between diet quality and cognitive function in community-dwelling older people: a cross-sectional study.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- Biomarker-based validation of a food frequency questionnaire for the assessment of omega-3 fatty acid status in a healthy Iranian population.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Valuing the Diversity of Research Methods to Advance Nutrition Science.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2022Article
- Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the performance of the commonly used 24 h recall (24hR) with the more distinct duplicate portion (DP) as reference method for validation of fatty acid intake estimated with an FFQ.
designIntakes of SFA, MUFA, n-3 fatty acids and linoleic acid (LA) were estimated by chemical analysis of two DP and by on average five 24hR and two FFQ. Plasma n-3 fatty acids and LA were used to objectively compare ranking of individuals based on DP and 24hR. Multivariate measurement error models were used to estimate validity coefficients and attenuation factors for the FFQ with the DP and 24hR as reference methods.
settingWageningen, the Netherlands. SUBJECTS: Ninety-two men and 106 women (aged 20-70 years).
resultsValidity coefficients for the fatty acid estimates by the FFQ tended to be lower when using the DP as reference method compared with the 24hR. Attenuation factors for the FFQ tended to be slightly higher based on the DP than those based on the 24hR as reference method. Furthermore, when using plasma fatty acids as reference, the DP showed comparable to slightly better ranking of participants according to their intake of n-3 fatty acids (0·33) and n-3:LA (0·34) than the 24hR (0·22 and 0·24, respectively).
conclusionsThe 24hR gives only slightly different results compared with the distinctive but less feasible DP, therefore use of the 24hR seems appropriate as the reference method for FFQ validation of fatty acid intake.
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.