Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34073378›Full record

ArticleNutrients2021

Using Wearable Cameras to Assess Foods and Beverages Omitted in 24 Hour Dietary Recalls and a Text Entry Food Record App.

Virginia Chan, Alyse Davies, Lyndal Wellard-Cole, Silvia Lu, Hoi Ng, Lok Tsoi, Anjali Tiscia, Louise Signal, Anna Rangan, Luke Gemming and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nutrients, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

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

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

11 authors.

Virginia ChanCharles Perkins Centre, Nutrition and Dietetics Group, School of Life and Environmental Science, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8839-896X
Alyse DaviesCharles Perkins Centre, Nutrition and Dietetics Group, School of Life and Environmental Science, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9448-7539
Lyndal Wellard-ColeCharles Perkins Centre, Nutrition and Dietetics Group, School of Life and Environmental Science, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1514-2135
Silvia LuCharles Perkins Centre, Nutrition and Dietetics Group, School of Life and Environmental Science, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia.
Hoi NgCharles Perkins Centre, Nutrition and Dietetics Group, School of Life and Environmental Science, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia.
Lok TsoiCharles Perkins Centre, Nutrition and Dietetics Group, School of Life and Environmental Science, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia.
Anjali TisciaCharles Perkins Centre, Nutrition and Dietetics Group, School of Life and Environmental Science, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia.
Louise SignalHealth Promotion & Policy Research Unit, Department of Public Health, University of Otago, 6242 Wellington, New Zealand.
Anna RanganCharles Perkins Centre, Nutrition and Dietetics Group, School of Life and Environmental Science, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1815-844X
Luke GemmingCharles Perkins Centre, Nutrition and Dietetics Group, School of Life and Environmental Science, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia.
Margaret Allman-FarinelliCharles Perkins Centre, Nutrition and Dietetics Group, School of Life and Environmental Science, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6478-1374

Funding

Australian Research Council LP150100831Cancer Council NSW LP150100831
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Technology-enhanced methods of dietary assessment may still face common limitations of self-report. This study aimed to assess foods and beverages omitted when both a 24 h recall and a smartphone app were used to assess dietary intake compared with camera images. For three consecutive days, young adults (18-30 years) wore an Autographer camera that took point-of-view images every 30 seconds. Over the same period, participants reported their diet in the app and completed daily 24 h recalls. Camera images were reviewed for food and beverages, then matched to the items reported in the 24 h recall and app. ANOVA (with post hoc analysis using Tukey Honest Significant Difference) and paired

Indexed as

BeveragesDietEatingFoodText MessagingWearable Electronic DevicesAdolescentAdultCondimentsEthanolFemaleHumansMalePlant OilsSelf ReportSnacksEthanolPlant OilsSugarsWaterdietary assessmentnutritiontechnologieswearable camerasyoung adults

Identifiers

PMID34073378
PMCPMC8228902

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.