ArticlePublic health nutrition2021
Development, validation and utilisation of dish-based dietary assessment tools: a scoping review.
Article in Public health nutrition, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Speech Recognition-Based Dietary Assessment Tool for Older Adults: Validation and Usability Study.JMIR aging · 2026Trial
- Development of the Australian Dietary Guidelines Adherence Tool (ADG-AT): A Food Matching Protocol.Nutrients · 2025Article
- Validity of a Web-Based 24-Hour Dietary Recall of Energy and Nutrient Intakes in Japanese Adults.Nutrients · 2024Article
- A scoping review of dietary assessment questionnaires potentially suitable for assessing habitual dietary intake in the National Health and Nutrition Survey, Japan.Journal of nutritional science · 2024Article
- Validation of food frequency questionnaire for food intake of adults in Gida, West, Ethiopia.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Article
- Definitions and Assessment Methods of 'Home Cooking' in Studies with Dietary Variables: A Scoping Review.Nutrients · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo summarise the existing evidence of development, validation and current status of utilisation of dish-based dietary assessment tools.
designScoping review.
settingSystematic search using PubMed and Web of Science.
resultsWe identified twelve tools from seventy-four eligible publications. They were developed for Koreans (n 4), Bangladeshis (n 2), Iranians (n 1), Indians/Malays/Chinese (n 1), Japanese (n 3) and Chinese Americans (n 1). Most tools (10/12) were composed of a dish-based FFQ. Although the development process of a dish list varied among the tools, six studies classified mixed dishes based on the similarity of their characteristics such as food ingredients and cooking methods. Tools were validated against self-reported dietary information (n 9) and concentration biomarkers (n 1). In the eight studies assessing the differences between the tool and a reference, the mean (or median) intake of energy significantly differed in five studies, and 26-83 % of nutrients significantly differed in eight studies. Correlation coefficients for energy ranged from 0·15 to 0·87 across the thirteen studies, and the median correlation coefficients for nutrients ranged from 0·12 to 0·77. Dish-based dietary assessment tools were used in fifty-nine studies mainly to assess diet-disease relationships in target populations.
conclusionsDish-based dietary assessment tools have exclusively been developed and used for Asian-origin populations. Further validation studies, particularly biomarker-based studies, are needed to assess the applicability of tools.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.