Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33564834›Full record

SynthesisThe American journal of clinical nutrition2021

Investigating sex differences in the accuracy of dietary assessment methods to measure energy intake in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Briar L McKenzie, Daisy H Coyle, Joseph Alvin Santos, Tracy Burrows, Emalie Rosewarne, Sanne A E Peters, Cheryl Carcel, Lindsay M Jaacks, Robyn Norton, Clare E Collins and 2 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The American journal of clinical nutrition, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing 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

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

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

12 authors.

Briar L McKenzieThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6972-6617
Daisy H CoyleThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8904-0671
Joseph Alvin SantosThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Tracy BurrowsSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medicine, and Priority Research Centre in Physical Activity and Nutrition, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
Emalie RosewarneThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5748-3953
Sanne A E PetersThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Cheryl CarcelThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Lindsay M JaacksGlobal Academy of Agriculture and Food Security, The University of Edinburgh, Roslin, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7791-5167
Robyn NortonThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3988-315X
Clare E CollinsSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medicine, and Priority Research Centre in Physical Activity and Nutrition, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
Mark WoodwardThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Jacqui WebsterThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3513-3340

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo inform the interpretation of dietary data in the context of sex differences in diet-disease relations, it is important to understand whether there are any sex differences in accuracy of dietary reporting.

objectiveTo quantify sex differences in self-reported total energy intake (TEI) compared with a reference measure of total energy expenditure (TEE).

methodsSix electronic databases were systematically searched for published original research articles between 1980 and April 2020. Studies were included if they were conducted in adult populations with measures for both females and males of self-reported TEI and TEE from doubly labeled water (DLW). Studies were screened and quality assessed independently by 2 authors. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to pool the mean differences between TEI and TEE for, and between, females and males, by method of dietary assessment.

resultsFrom 1313 identified studies, 31 met the inclusion criteria. The studies collectively included information on 4518 individuals (54% females). Dietary assessment methods included 24-h recalls (n = 12, 2 with supplemental photos of food items consumed), estimated food records (EFRs; n = 11), FFQs (n = 10), weighed food records (WFRs, n = 5), and diet histories (n = 2). Meta-analyses identified underestimation of TEI by females and males, ranging from -1318 kJ/d (95% CI: -1967, -669) for FFQ to -2650 kJ/d (95% CI: -3492, -1807) for 24-h recalls for females, and from -1764 kJ/d (95% CI: -2285, -1242) for FFQ to -3438 kJ/d (95% CI: -5382, -1494) for WFR for males. There was no difference in the level of underestimation by sex, except when using EFR, for which males underestimated energy intake more than females (by 590 kJ/d, 95% CI: 35, 1,146).

conclusionSubstantial underestimation of TEI across a range of dietary assessment methods was identified, similar by sex. These underestimations should be considered when assessing TEI and interpreting diet-disease relations.

Indexed as

Energy IntakeDietEnergy MetabolismFemaleHumansMaleSex Characteristicsdietary methodologydoubly labeled waterenergy expenditureenergy intakemeta-analysissex differencessystematic review

Identifiers

PMID33564834
PMCPMC8106762

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.