ArticleEuropean journal of clinical nutrition2022
Misreporting of dietary energy intake obtained by 24 h recalls in older adults: a comparison of five previous methods using doubly labeled water.
Article in European journal of clinical nutrition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dietary misreporting: a comparative study of recalls vs energy expenditure and energy intake by doubly-labeled water in older adults with overweight or obesity.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Trial
- Article
- Estimation of the Energy Intake Required to Prevent Body-Weight Loss in Residents of Japanese Long-Term Care Facilities.Nutrients · 2025Article
- Secular trends of vitamin D and calcium intake and their circulating levels in US adults from 2007 to 2018.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectiveTo test five different methods to detect misreporting in comparison to doubly labeled water in a sample of older adults. SUBJECTS/
methodsA cross-sectional study with thirty-eight Brazilian community-dwelling older adults aged 60-84 years, who had their total energy expenditure measured by doubly labeled water (TEE
resultsThe prevalence of under-reporters (UR) and over-reporters (OR) obtained by the reference (DLW) were 57.9% (n = 22) and 5.3% (n = 2), respectively. Black [3] presented the worst agreement and McCrory et al. [4] the best one to accurately classify individuals in the three categories of energy reporting. McCrory et al. [4] had the best performance in the sensitivity and specificity analyses detecting UR and plausible reporters.
conclusionsThere was a high prevalence of misreporting, especially underreporting, in this sample of community-dwelling Brazilian older adults. The study showed a wide variation in the accuracy of predictive methods to handle misreporting, with none of the equations showing outstanding agreement with the reference. When DLW is not available, a valid method should be chosen to address energy intake reporting.
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.