Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32635636›Full record

ArticleNutrients2020

Relative Validity of the HELIUS Food Frequency Questionnaire for Measuring Dietary Intake in Older Adult Participants of the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam.

Marjolein Visser, Liset E M Elstgeest, Laura H H Winkens, Ingeborg A Brouwer, Mary Nicolaou

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Nutrients, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Validation of the German version of the Protein Screener 55.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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.

Marjolein VisserDepartment of Health Sciences, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Liset E M ElstgeestDepartment of Health Sciences, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Laura H H WinkensConsumption and Healthy Lifestyles Group, Wageningen University & Research, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN Wageningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9856-6509
Ingeborg A BrouwerDepartment of Health Sciences, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8762-382X
Mary NicolaouDepartment of Public Health, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

European Commission grant agreement no. 613598 FP7Netherlands Ministry of Health Welfare and Sports Directorate of Long-Term Care (321175 and 325889)Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research "New Cohorts of young old in the 21st century" (file number 480-10-014).
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine the relative validity of the HEalthy LIfe in an Urban Setting (HELIUS) food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) in assessing the dietary intake of energy, nutrients, and food groups of Dutch older men and women. In 2014-2015, 88 participants of the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam aged 71.9 (SD 8.6) years completed the 238-item HELIUS FFQ and three 24-hour dietary recalls. The mean group-level bias in the intakes of energy, nutrients, and food groups between the two methods was assessed, as well as Pearson's correlation coefficients and level of agreement using quintile distribution. For the intakes of energy and macronutrients, the group-level bias was ≤5%, Pearson's correlation coefficients were moderate to good (ranging from 0.26 for total fat to 0.72 for alcohol), and agreement was moderate to high (classification in same or adjacent quintile ranging from 63% for energy, protein, and carbohydrate to 91% for alcohol). For most micronutrients and food groups, the relative validity was moderate (Pearson's correlation coefficients between 0.3 and 0.5), with the lowest correlations for β-carotene (0.08), vitamin B1 (0.19), fish (0.14), and grains (0.24). In conclusion, for energy and macronutrients, most micronutrients, and most food groups, the relative validity of the HELIUS FFQ to assess dietary intake in Dutch older adults was acceptable to good.

Indexed as

Nutrition AssessmentAgedAged, 80 and overDietDiet SurveysFemaleGeriatric AssessmentHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleMicronutrientsNetherlandsNutrientsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesMicronutrientsNutrients24-hour recalldiet assessmentelderlyFFQvalidation

Identifiers

PMID32635636
PMCPMC7400819

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.