Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33684195›Full record

SynthesisAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2021

Dietary Assessment Methods to Estimate (Poly)phenol Intake in Epidemiological Studies: A Systematic Review.

Yifan Xu, Melanie Le Sayec, Caroline Roberts, Sabine Hein, Ana Rodriguez-Mateos, Rachel Gibson

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

6 authors.

Yifan XuDepartment of Nutritional Sciences, School of Life Course Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8999-2565
Melanie Le SayecDepartment of Nutritional Sciences, School of Life Course Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9590-4165
Caroline RobertsDepartment of Nutritional Sciences, School of Life Course Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Sabine HeinDepartment of Nutritional Sciences, School of Life Course Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Ana Rodriguez-MateosDepartment of Nutritional Sciences, School of Life Course Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Rachel GibsonDepartment of Nutritional Sciences, School of Life Course Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5823-6468

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nutritional epidemiological studies have frequently reported associations between higher (poly)phenol intake and a decrease in the risk or incidence of noncommunicable diseases. However, the assessment methods that have been used to quantify the intakes of these compounds in large-population samples are highly variable. This systematic review aims to characterize the methods used to assess dietary (poly)phenol intake in observational studies, report the validation status of the methods, and give recommendations on method selection and data reporting. Three databases were searched for publications that have used dietary assessment methods to measure (poly)phenol intake and 549 eligible full texts were identified. Food-frequency questionnaires were found to be the most commonly used tool to assess dietary (poly)phenol intake (73%). Published data from peer-reviewed journals were the major source of (poly)phenol content data (25%). An increasing number of studies used open-access databases such as Phenol-Explorer and USDA databases on flavonoid content since their inception, which accounted for 11% and 23% of the data sources, respectively. Only 16% of the studies reported a method that had been validated for measuring the target (poly)phenols. For future research we recommend: 1) selecting a validated dietary assessment tool according to the target compounds and target period of measurement; 2) applying and combining comprehensive (poly)phenol content databases such as USDA and Phenol-Explorer; 3) detailing the methods used to assess (poly)phenol intake, including dietary assessment method, (poly)phenol content data source; 4) follow the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology-Nutritional Epidemiology (STROBE-nut) framework; and 5) complementing dietary intake assessment based on questionnaires with measurement of (poly)phenols in biofluids using appropriate and validated analytical methods.

Indexed as

Nutrition AssessmentPhenolDietEpidemiologic StudiesHumansObservational Studies as TopicPhenolsPhenolPhenolsdietary assessment methoddietary intakedietary (poly)phenolepidemiology studymethod validationsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID33684195
PMCPMC8483972

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.