Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32487576›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2020

Gender differences in the accuracy of dietary assessment methods to measure energy intake in adults: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Briar L McKenzie, Daisy H Coyle, Tracy Burrows, Emalie Rosewarne, Sanne A E Peters, Cheryl Carcel, Clare E Collins, Robyn Norton, Mark Woodward, Lindsay M Jaacks and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

11 authors.

Briar L McKenzieThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia bmckenzie@georgeinstitute.org.au.ORCID 0000-0001-6972-6617
Daisy H CoyleThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Tracy BurrowsSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medicine, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.
Emalie RosewarneThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5748-3953
Sanne A E PetersThe George Institute for Global Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK.
Cheryl CarcelThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Clare E CollinsSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medicine, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.
Robyn NortonThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Mark WoodwardThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Lindsay M JaacksDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Jacqui WebsterThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDiet is an important modifiable risk factor for many chronic diseases. Measurement of dietary intake usually relies on self-report, subject to multiple biases. There is a need to understand gender differences in the self-report of dietary intake and the implications of any differences in targeting nutrition interventions. Literature in this area is limited and it is currently unknown whether self-report dietary assessment methods are equally accurate for women and men. The aim of this systematic review is to determine whether there are differences by gender in reporting energy intake compared with a reference measure of total energy expenditure. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A comprehensive search of published original research studies will be performed in MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane library. Original research studies will be included if they were conducted in free-living/unhospitalised adults and included a measure for both women and men of (a) self-reported energy intake and (b) total energy expenditure by doubly labelled water. One author will conduct the electronic database searches, two authors will independently screen studies, conduct a quality appraisal of the included studies using standardised tools and extract data. If further information is needed, then study authors will be contacted. If appropriate, a random-effects meta-analysis will be conducted, with inverse probability weighting, to quantify differences in the mean difference in agreement between reported energy intake and measured energy expenditure between women and men, by self-report assessment method. Subgroup analyses will be conducted by participant factors, geographical factors and study quality. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: All data used will be from published primary research studies or deidentified results provided at the discretion of any study authors that we contact. We will submit our findings to a peer-reviewed scientific journal and will disseminate results through presentations at international scientific conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019131715.

Indexed as

Nutrition AssessmentSex CharacteristicsAdultEatingEnergy IntakeFemaleHumansMaleMeta-Analysis as TopicRisk FactorsSystematic Reviews as Topicepidemiologynutrition & dieteticspublic health

Identifiers

PMID32487576
PMCPMC7265006

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.