ArticlePublic health nutrition2022
Different dietary assessment methods, similar conclusions? Comparison of a country's adherence to food-based dietary guidelines as depicted in two population-based surveys using different dietary assessment methods.
Article in Public health 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.
- Association between dietary factors and health-related quality of life in adolescents longitudinally over three years from age 11-16 years.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Food Group Consumption and Nutrient Intake by Breastfeeding Women: Comparison to Current Dietary Guidelines and Nutrient Recommendations.Nutrients · 2025Article
- The NutriLight framework: a novel approach to evaluating sustainable and healthy diets.Journal of nutritional science · 2025Article
- How prevalent is a cancer-protective lifestyle? Adherence to the 2018 World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research cancer prevention recommendations in Switzerland.The British journal of nutrition · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveDifferent methods of dietary intake assessment are frequently used to assess a population's diet. In this study, we aimed to compare the adherence to Swiss food-based dietary guidelines as depicted in two Swiss population-based surveys using different methods of dietary assessment.
designTwo population-based, cross-sectional surveys were compared. In the Swiss Health Survey (SHS), diet was assessed via a short set of questions on specific food groups, while in menuCH by two non-consecutive 24-h dietary recall interviews.
settingTo compare the diet depicted in these surveys, we used the Swiss food-based dietary guidelines on vegetable, fruit, dairy product, meat and meat product, fish and alcohol. The weighted proportion of responders meeting these guidelines was calculated for both surveys and was compared overall and by selected characteristics.
participantsResidents of Switzerland, selected from a stratified random sample of the non-institutionalised residents, who agreed to participate in the respective survey. To ensure comparability between the surveys, the age of the study populations was restricted to 18-75 years.
resultsIn menuCH, approximately 2 % of responders met ≥4 of the selected Swiss food-based dietary guidelines. In the SHS, using a cruder dietary assessment, the corresponding percentage was 20 %. In both surveys, more women and never smokers were meeting ≥4 food-based dietary guidelines compared to men and current or former smokers, respectively.
conclusionsOur study comparing the diet in two population-based, representative surveys detected large variations in guideline adherence depending on the dietary assessment method used.
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.