Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32554383›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2020

Rethinking the Use of Mobile Apps for Dietary Assessment in Medical Research.

Wael Khazen, Jean-François Jeanne, Laëtitia Demaretz, Florent Schäfer, Guy Fagherazzi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Wael Khazen *Kelly OCG, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0002-4158-516X
Jean-François JeanneInnovation Science and Nutrition, Danone Nutricia Research, Palaiseau, France.ORCID 0000-0002-5074-4679
Laëtitia DemaretzInnovation Science and Nutrition, Danone Nutricia Research, Palaiseau, France.ORCID 0000-0002-6579-402X
Florent Schäfer *Innovation Science and Nutrition, Danone Nutricia Research, Palaiseau, France.ORCID 0000-0001-6816-5731
Guy Fagherazzi *Digital Epidemiology Hub, Department of Population Health, Luxembourg Institute of Health, Strassen, Luxembourg.ORCID 0000-0001-5033-5966
Danone (France) · FRInserm · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Food intake and usual dietary intake are among the key determinants of health to be assessed in medical research and important confounding factors to be accounted for in clinical studies. Although various methods are available for gathering dietary data, those based on innovative technologies are particularly promising. With combined cost-effectiveness and ease of use, it is safe to assume that mobile technologies can now optimize tracking of eating occasions and dietary behaviors. Yet, choosing a dietary assessment tool that meets research objectives and data quality standards remains challenging. In this paper, we describe the purposes of collecting dietary data in medical research and outline the main considerations for using mobile dietary assessment tools based on participant and researcher expectations.

Indexed as

Nutrition AssessmentBiomedical ResearchDietHumansMobile Applicationsacademic appsclinical researchconsumer-grade appsdietdietary assessmentepidemiologymobile diet app

Identifiers

PMID32554383
PMCPMC7333076
OpenAlexW2996678986

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.