Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33063105›Full record

ArticleAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2021

Within-Person Variation in Nutrient Intakes across Populations and Settings: Implications for the Use of External Estimates in Modeling Usual Nutrient Intake Distributions.

Caitlin D French, Joanne E Arsenault, Charles D Arnold, Demewoz Haile, Hanqi Luo, Kevin W Dodd, Stephen A Vosti, Carolyn M Slupsky, Reina Engle-Stone, Variance Components of Nutrient Intakes Data Working Group

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

10 authors.

Caitlin D FrenchDepartment of Nutrition, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA.
Joanne E ArsenaultIntake-Center for Dietary Assessment, FHI Solutions, Washington, DC, USA.
Charles D ArnoldInstitute for Global Nutrition, University of California, Davis, CA, USA.
Demewoz HaileDepartment of Nutrition, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA.
Hanqi LuoDepartment of Nutrition, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA.
Kevin W DoddNational Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD, USA.
Stephen A VostiDepartment of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Davis, CA, USA.
Carolyn M SlupskyDepartment of Nutrition, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA.
Reina Engle-StoneDepartment of Nutrition, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA.
Variance Components of Nutrient Intakes Data Working Group

Funding

UC Davis Environmental Health Sciences Core CenterP30ES023513 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI Ameer Taha · 2015 to 2026
$26.0M
NIEHS NIH HHS P30 ES023513
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Determining the proportion of a population at risk of inadequate or excessive nutrient intake is a crucial step in planning and managing nutrition intervention programs. Multiple days of 24-h dietary intake data per subject allow for adjustment of modeled usual nutrient intake distributions for the proportion of total variance in intake attributable to within-individual variation (WIV:total). When only single-day dietary data are available, an external adjustment factor can be used; however, WIV:total may vary by population, and use of incorrect WIV:total ratios may influence the accuracy of prevalence estimates and subsequent program impacts. WIV:total values were compiled from publications and from reanalyses of existing datasets to describe variation in WIV:total across populations and settings. The potential impact of variation in external WIV:total on estimates of prevalence of inadequacy was assessed through simulation analyses using the National Cancer Institute 1-d method. WIV:total values were extracted from 40 publications from 24 countries, and additional values were calculated from 15 datasets from 12 nations. Wide variation in WIV:total (from 0.02 to 1.00) was observed in publications and reanalyses. Few patterns by population characteristics were apparent, but WIV:total varied by age in children (< vs. >1 y) and between rural and urban settings. Simulation analyses indicated that estimates of the prevalence of inadequate intake are sensitive to the selected ratio in some cases. Selection of an external WIV:total estimate should consider comparability between the reference and primary studies with regard to population characteristics, study design, and statistical methods. Given wide variation in observed ratios with few discernible patterns, the collection of ≥2 days of intake data in at least a representative subsample in population dietary studies is strongly encouraged. In the case of single-day dietary studies, sensitivity analyses are recommended to determine the robustness of prevalence estimates to changes in the variance ratio.

Indexed as

Biological Variation, IndividualEnergy IntakeChildDietDiet SurveysEatingHumansNutritional Requirementsdietary assessmentmeasurement errormicronutrientsvariance componentsvariance ratiowithin-individual variation

Identifiers

PMID33063105
PMCPMC8262514

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.