ArticleEuropean journal of clinical nutrition2018
Spot urine and 24-h diet recall estimates of dietary sodium intake from the 2008/09 New Zealand Adult Nutrition Survey: a comparison.
Article in European journal of clinical nutrition, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sodium in the New Zealand diet: proposed voluntary food reformulation targets will not meet the WHO goal of a 30% reduction in total sodium intake.European journal of nutrition · 2022Article
- Role of high-salt diet in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a mini-review of the evidence.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2022Review
- Association of dietary patterns with gut microbiota in kidney stone and non-kidney stone individuals.Urolithiasis · 2022Article
- Dietary sodium estimation methods: accuracy and limitations of old and new methods in individuals at high cardiovascular risk.Public health nutrition · 2022Article
- Processed Food and Atopic Dermatitis: A Pooled Analysis of Three Cross-Sectional Studies in Chinese Adults.Frontiers in nutrition · 2021Article
- [Validity and limitations of methods to measure the intake and elimination of salt].Atencion primaria · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe aimed to test the difference between estimates of dietary sodium intake using 24-h diet recall and spot urine collection in a large sample of New Zealand adults.
methodsWe analysed spot urine results, 24-h diet recall, dietary habits questionnaire and anthropometry from a representative sample of 3312 adults aged 15 years and older who participated in the 2008/09 New Zealand Adult Nutrition Survey. Estimates of adult population sodium intake were derived from 24-h diet recall and spot urine sodium using a formula derived from analysis of INTERSALT data. Correlations, limits of agreement and mean difference were calculated for the total sample, and for population subgroups.
resultsEstimated total population 24-h urinary sodium excretion (mean (95% CI)) from spot urine samples was 3035 mg (2990, 3079); 3612 mg (3549, 3674) for men and 2507 mg (2466, 2548) for women. Estimated mean usual daily sodium intake from 24-h diet recall data (excluding salt added at the table) was 2564 mg (2519, 2608); 2849 mg (2779, 2920) for men and 2304 mg (2258, 2350) for women. Correlations between estimates were poor, especially for men, and limits of agreement using Bland-Altman mean difference analysis were wide.
conclusionsThere is a poor agreement between estimates of individual sodium intake from spot urine collection and those from 24-hour diet recall. Although, both 24-hour dietary recall and estimated urinary excretion based on spot urine indicate mean population sodium intake is greater than 2 g, significant differences in mean intake by method deserve further investigation in relation to the gold standard, 24-hour urinary sodium excretion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29786097What 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.