SynthesisAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2021
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Validation Studies Performed on Dietary Record Apps.
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 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Effect of Nutritional Mobile Apps on Populations With Cancer: Systematic Review.JMIR cancer · 2025Pooled it
- Trial
- Trial
- Relative Validation of an Artificial Intelligence-Enhanced, Image-Assisted Mobile App for Dietary Assessment in Adults: Randomized Crossover Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Trial
- Article
- A systematic review of methodology in nutritional trials in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2026Review
- Article
- Reducing bias and enhancing equity in AI-enabled precision nutrition: addressing measurement error across wearables, multiomics, and dietary data.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- The promise and challenges of exposomics in child health research.Pediatric research · 2025Review
- Customized multimodal Diabot-GPT-4o enhances accuracy of image-based dietary assessments in dietetic trainees in Taiwan: validation against weighed food records.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2025Article
- Long-Term Weight Loss in Adults With Overweight or Obesity Using a Breath Biofeedback mHealth App: A One-Year Follow-Up of a Randomized Trial.Obesity science & practice · 2025Article
- Validity of self-assessment tools for cardiovascular risk behaviors: A systematic review.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2025Review
- Reproducibility and Validity of a Food Intake Survey Developed for Implementation via Digital Health for Patients With or at Risk for Cardiovascular Disease.Circulation reports · 2025Article
- Reliability and Validity of Nutrient Assessment Applications for Canadian Endurance Athletes: MyFitnessPal and Cronometer.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2025Observational
- An Image-Voice Dietary Assessment System for Estimating Individual Nutrient Intakes in Cambodian Women and Children: Relative Validity, Reliability, and Acceptability Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Article
- Relative Validity of the Food Recording Smartphone App Libro in Young People Vulnerable to Eating Disorder: A Preliminary Cross-Over Study.Nutrients · 2025Article
- Nutrition: A non-negligible factor in the pathogenesis and treatment of Alzheimer's disease.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025Review
- Article
- Sex-specific dietary habits and their association with weight change in healthy adults.BMC medicine · 2024Observational
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mobile dietary record apps have been increasingly validated by studies with various study designs. This review aims to evaluate the overall accuracy of dietary record apps in measuring the intake of energy, macro- and micronutrients, and food groups in real-life settings and the designs of validation studies. We systematically searched mobile dietary record validation studies published during the period from 2013 to 2019. We identified 14 studies for the systematic review, of which 11 studies were suitable for meta-analyses on energy intake and 8 studies on macronutrient intake. Mean differences and SDs of nutrient estimations between the app and the reference method from studies were pooled using a random-effects model. All apps underestimated energy intake when compared with their reference methods, with a pooled effect of -202 kcal/d (95% CI: -319, -85 kcal/d); the heterogeneity of studies was 72%. After stratification, studies that used the same food-composition table for both the app and the reference method had a lower level of heterogeneity (0%) and a pooled effect of -57 kcal/d (95% CI: -116, 2 kcal/d). The heterogeneity of studies in the differences in carbohydrate, fat, and protein intake was 54%, 73%, and 80%, with the pooled effect of -18.8 g/d, -12.7 g/d, and -12.2 g/d, respectively, after excluding outliers. The intakes of micronutrients and food groups were statistically nonsignificantly underestimated by the apps in most cases. In conclusion, dietary record apps underestimated food consumption compared with traditional dietary assessment methods. Moreover, varying study designs have been found across studies. Recommended practices for conducting validation studies were formulated including considering biomarkers as the reference, testing in a larger and more representative study population for a longer period, avoiding the learning effect of each method, and comparing food group or food item consumption in addition to comparing energy and nutrient intakes.
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.