Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36041186›Full record

SynthesisAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2022

A Systematic Review Examining Contributors to Misestimation of Food and Beverage Intake Based on Short-Term Self-Report Dietary Assessment Instruments Administered to Adults.

Clare Whitton, César Ramos-García, Sharon I Kirkpatrick, Janelle D Healy, Satvinder S Dhaliwal, Carol J Boushey, Clare E Collins, Megan E Rollo, Deborah A Kerr

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors at 6 institutions in 6 countries.

Clare WhittonCurtin School of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1991-2432
César Ramos-GarcíaCurtin School of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia.
Sharon I KirkpatrickSchool of Public Health Sciences, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.
Janelle D HealyCurtin School of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia.
Satvinder S DhaliwalCurtin Health Innovation Research Institute, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia.
Carol J BousheyEpidemiology Program, University of Hawaii Cancer Center, Honolulu, HI, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7517-787X
Clare E CollinsSchool of Health Sciences, College of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3298-756X
Megan E RolloCurtin School of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia.
Deborah A KerrCurtin School of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia.
Curtin University · AUHunter Medical Research Institute · AUUniversidad de Guadalajara · MXUniversiti Sains Malaysia · MYUniversity of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa · USUniversity of Waterloo · CA

Funding

University of Hawaii Cancer Center CCSGP30CA071789 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII AT MANOA · PI Pallav Pokhrel · 1996 to 2026
$56.2M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA071789
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Error in self-reported food and beverage intake affects the accuracy of dietary intake data. Systematically synthesizing available data on contributors to error within and between food groups has not been conducted but may help inform error mitigation strategies. In this review we aimed to systematically identify, quantify, and compare contributors to error in estimated intake of foods and beverages, based on short-term self-report dietary assessment instruments, such as 24-h dietary recalls and dietary records. Seven research databases were searched for studies including self-reported dietary assessment and a comparator measure of observed intake (e.g., direct observation or controlled feeding studies) in healthy adults up until December 2021. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data from included studies, recording quantitative data on omissions, intrusions, misclassifications, and/or portion misestimations. Risk of bias was assessed using the QualSyst tool. A narrative synthesis focused on patterns of error within and between food groups. Of 2328 articles identified, 29 met inclusion criteria and were included, corresponding to 2964 participants across 15 countries. Most frequently reported contributors to error were omissions and portion size misestimations of food/beverage items. Although few consistent patterns were seen in omission of consumed items, beverages were omitted less frequently (0-32% of the time), whereas vegetables (2-85%) and condiments (1-80%) were omitted more frequently than other items. Both under- and overestimation of portion size was seen for most single food/beverage items within study samples and most food groups. Studies considered and reported error in different ways, impeding the interpretation of how error contributors interact to impact overall misestimation. We recommend that future studies report 1) all error contributors for each food/beverage item evaluated (i.e., omission, intrusion, misclassification, and portion misestimation), and 2) measures of variation of the error. The protocol of this review was registered in PROSPERO as CRD42020202752 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/).

Indexed as

BeveragesNutrition AssessmentAdultDietHumansSelf ReportVegetables24-h dietary recallbiascontrolled feedingdietary recorddirect observationerrorintrusionmisreportingomissionportion size

Identifiers

PMID36041186
PMCPMC9776649
OpenAlexW4293694914

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.