Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34378249›Full record

ArticleJournal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association2021

Development and validation of the FiberScreen: A short questionnaire to screen fibre intake in adults.

Iris Rijnaarts, Nicole de Roos, Erwin G Zoetendal, Nicole de Wit, Ben J M Witteman

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Development and validation of the FiberScreen: A short questionnaire to screen fibre intake in adults.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2021
    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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Iris RijnaartsDivision of Human Nutrition & Health, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7811-6669
Nicole de RoosDivision of Human Nutrition & Health, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3655-1678
Erwin G ZoetendalLaboratory of Microbiology, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7149-0727
Nicole de WitWageningen Food and Biobased Research, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6686-8836
Ben J M WittemanDivision of Human Nutrition & Health, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1341-8540
Wageningen University & Research · NLZiekenhuis Gelderse Vallei · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth effects of dietary fibres are the topic of many studies. Eligibility criteria often include a certain fibre intake, which requires dietary screening during recruitment. However, dietary assessment methods are extensive and burdensome for both the researcher and participant. Therefore, we developed and validated a short questionnaire (FiberScreen) to screen fibre intake.

methodsThe initial five-item questionnaire assessed fruit, vegetable, whole grain, pasta/rice/potato and legume intake. The optimised FiberScreen included 18 items, which further specified intake of the above-mentioned categories, and included nuts and seeds. The FiberScreen was completed during two fibre promoting interventions. In Study A, participants without constipation completed the five-item FiberScreen and a food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) during screening (n = 131), and the 18-item FiberScreen and a FFQ at 3-month follow-up (n = 87). In Study B, 29 constipated participants completed the 18-item FiberScreen at screening and a FFQ during the first study visit.

resultsThe fibre estimate from the five-item FiberScreen and the FFQ was moderately correlated (r = 0.356, p < 0.001). Importantly, the 18-item FiberScreen and FFQ, when data of both studies were combined, had a strong correlation (r = 0.563, p < 0.001). The 18-item FiberScreen had a lower fibre estimate compared to the FFQ (Δ = 1.2 ± 5.9 g, p = 0.030) but the difference was relatively small. Bland-Altman plots showed a good agreement between the questionnaires. Completion time of the 18-item FiberScreen was 4.2 ± 2 min.

conclusionsThe 18-item FiberScreen is a suitable short screening questionnaire for ranking the fibre intake of adults. The 18-item FiberScreen can help to reduce screening burden for both the participant and researcher.

Indexed as

DietVegetablesAdultDiet RecordsHumansReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and Questionnairescomparabilitydietary fibrefood frequency questionnairefunctional bowel disordersquestionnairescreening

Identifiers

PMID34378249
PMCPMC9290675
OpenAlexW3191218109

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.