Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34019624›Full record

SynthesisAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2021

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Validation Studies Performed on Dietary Record Apps.

Liangzi Zhang, Andreja Misir, Hendriek Boshuizen, Marga Ocké

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic 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 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. 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 · 2025
    Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Nutrition: A non-negligible factor in the pathogenesis and treatment of Alzheimer's disease.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Observational
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

4 authors.

Liangzi ZhangNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6231-5783
Andreja MisirDivision of Human Nutrition, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Hendriek BoshuizenNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Marga OckéNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Energy IntakeMobile ApplicationsDietDiet RecordsHumansNutrientsNutrientsdietary appsdietary assessmentdietary intakedietary recordsmeta-analysismobile technologiesreviewsmartphone appsstudy designvalidation study

Identifiers

PMID34019624
PMCPMC8634532

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.