Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33317123›Full record

SynthesisNutrients2020

Diet Quality Indices Used in Australian and New Zealand Adults: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal.

Hlaing Hlaing-Hlaing, Kristine Pezdirc, Meredith Tavener, Erica L James, Alexis Hure

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Nutrients, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Personality Determinants of Diet Health Quality among an Elite Group of Polish Team Athletes.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    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 1 institution in 1 country.

Hlaing Hlaing-HlaingSchool of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Newcastle NSW 2308, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4933-0396
Kristine PezdircSchool of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Newcastle NSW 2308, Australia.
Meredith TavenerSchool of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Newcastle NSW 2308, Australia.
Erica L JamesSchool of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Newcastle NSW 2308, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0880-3604
Alexis HureSchool of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Newcastle NSW 2308, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2225-0986
Hunter Medical Research Institute · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Distilling the complexity of overall diet into a simple measure or summative score by data reduction methods has become a common practice in nutritional epidemiology. Recent reviews on diet quality indices (DQI) have highlighted the importance of sound construction criteria and validation. The aim of this current review was to identify and critically appraise all DQI used within Australian and New Zealand adult populations. Twenty-five existing DQI were identified by electronic searching in Medline and hand searching of reference lists. DQI were constructed based on the respective national dietary guidelines and condition-specific recommendations. For preferable features of DQI, six captured the dimensions of adequacy, moderation and balance; five had a nested structure; 12 consisted of foods, food groups and nutrients; 11 used metric scoring systems and most of those with metric scales used normative cutoff points. Food frequency questionnaires, either alone or with other methods, were the most common dietary assessment method used in 20 DQI. For evaluation of DQI, construct validity and relative validity are reported. Based on our critical appraisal, Dietary Guideline Index (DGI), Dietary Guideline Index-2013 (DGI-2013), Total Diet Score (TDS), Healthy Eating Index for Australian Adults-2013 (HEIFA-2013), and Aussie-Diet Quality Index (Aussie-DQI) were the preferred DQI used in Australian adults according to dimension, indicator selection, scoring criteria and evaluation. Further work is needed to enhance the construction of all Australian and New Zealand DQI, especially in terms of dimension and structure, for alignment with recommended construction criteria.

Indexed as

Nutrition AssessmentNutrition PolicyAdultAustraliaDiet, HealthyDiet SurveysHumansNew Zealandadultsdietary assessmentdiet qualityevaluationindexsystematic reviewvalidity

Identifiers

PMID33317123
PMCPMC7763901
OpenAlexW3111089100

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.