Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31920966›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in endocrinology2019

Validity of Dietary Assessment Methods When Compared to the Method of Doubly Labeled Water: A Systematic Review in Adults.

Tracy L Burrows, Yan Yee Ho, Megan E Rollo, Clare E Collins

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 122 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
122citing papers in PubMed, 8 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

122 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

62 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.

Tracy L BurrowsSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Priority Research Centre for Physical Activity and Nutrition, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
Yan Yee HoSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Priority Research Centre for Physical Activity and Nutrition, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
Megan E RolloSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Priority Research Centre for Physical Activity and Nutrition, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
Clare E CollinsSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Priority Research Centre for Physical Activity and Nutrition, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accuracy in quantifying energy intake (EI) using common dietary assessment methods is crucial for interpreting the relationship between diet and chronic disease. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the validity of dietary assessment methods used to estimate the EI of adults in comparison to total energy expenditure (TEE) measured by doubly labeled water (DLW). Articles in English across nine electronic databases, published between 1973 and February 2019 were retrieved. Studies were included if participants were adults (≥18 years) and used the DLW technique to measure TEE compared to self-reported EI. A total of 59 studies were included, with a total of 6,298 free living adults and a mean of 107 participants per study. The majority of studies including 16 studies that included a technology based method reported significant (

Indexed as

adultsdietary assessmentdoubly labeled waterenergy intakevalidation

Identifiers

PMID31920966
PMCPMC6928130

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.