Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31578550›Full record

SynthesisAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2020

Reproducibility and Validity of A Posteriori Dietary Patterns: A Systematic Review.

Valeria Edefonti, Roberta De Vito, Michela Dalmartello, Linia Patel, Andrea Salvatori, Monica Ferraroni

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Association between food security status and dietary patterns in a cohort of first-time food-aid users.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Observational
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

6 authors.

Valeria EdefontiBranch of Medical Statistics, Biometry and Epidemiology "G. A. Maccacaro", Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Roberta De VitoDepartment of Computer Science, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA.
Michela DalmartelloBranch of Medical Statistics, Biometry and Epidemiology "G. A. Maccacaro", Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Linia PatelBranch of Medical Statistics, Biometry and Epidemiology "G. A. Maccacaro", Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Andrea SalvatoriBranch of Medical Statistics, Biometry and Epidemiology "G. A. Maccacaro", Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Monica FerraroniBranch of Medical Statistics, Biometry and Epidemiology "G. A. Maccacaro", Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.

Funding

Medical Research Council G9815508Medical Research Council MC_PC_19009
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The effective use of dietary patterns (DPs) remains limited. There is a need to assess their consistency over multiple administrations of the same dietary source, different dietary sources, or across different studies. Similarly, their generalizability should be based on a previous assessment of DP construct validity. However, to date, no systematic reviews of reproducibility and validity of a posteriori DPs have been carried out. In addition, several methodological questions related to their identification are still open and prevent a fair comparison of epidemiological results on DPs and disease. A systematic review of the literature on the PubMed database was conducted. We identified 218 articles, 64 of which met the inclusion criteria. Of these, the 38 articles dealing with reproducibility and relative and construct validity of DPs were included. These articles (published in 1999-2017, 53% from 2010 onwards) were based on observational studies conducted worldwide. The 14 articles that assessed DP reproducibility across different statistical solutions examined different research questions. Included were: the number of food groups or subjects; input variable format (as well as adjustment for energy intake); algorithms and the number of DPs to retain in cluster analysis; rotation method; and score calculation in factor analysis. However, we identified at most 3 articles per research question on DP reproducibility across statistical solutions. From another 15 articles, reproducibility of DPs over shorter (≤1 y) time periods was generally good and higher than DP relative validity (as measured across different dietary sources). Confirmatory factor analysis was used in 15 of the included articles. It provided reassuring results in identifying valid dietary constructs characterizing the populations under consideration. Based on the available evidence, only suggestive conclusions can be derived on reproducibility across different statistical solutions. Nevertheless, most identified DPs showed good reproducibility, fair relative validity, and good construct validity.

Indexed as

DietFeeding BehaviorReproducibility of ResultsDiet RecordsHumansNutrition PolicyPubMedSurveys and Questionnairesa posteriori dietary patternscluster analysisconsistency of dietary patternsconstruct validity of dietary patternsfactor analysisgeneralizability of dietary patternsrelative validity of dietary patternsreproducibility of dietary patternsvalidity of dietary patterns

Identifiers

PMID31578550
PMCPMC7442345

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.