Trial reportBehavioral medicine (Washington, D.C.)
Perceived and calculated diet quality improvements in a randomized mHealth weight loss trial.
Trial report in Behavioral medicine (Washington, D.C.). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Discrepancy between self-perceived dietary habits and objective clinical risk of liver fibrosis: A cross-sectional study of Japanese health checkup participants.Asia Pacific journal of clinical nutrition · 2026Article
- Associations between Determinants of Food Choice and the Healthy Eating Index-2020 in Adults: An NHANES 2017-March 2020 Analysis.Current developments in nutrition · 2026Article
- Misperception of diet quality among US adults: implications for cardiometabolic health promotion.European journal of clinical 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The diet quality of US adults is poor and cross-sectional analyses suggest self-perception of healthful dietary intake may be overestimated. This analysis assessed the concordance between calculated and perceived diet quality and changes in diet quality among adults seeking weight loss and enrolled in a 12-month randomized behavioral trial. Healthy Eating Index-2015 diet quality (HEI) was calculated from self-administered 24-hour recalls. Perceived diet quality (PDQ) was measured on a 100-point scale. Higher scores indicate better diet quality. Concordance was assessed using the concordance correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman plots. The one hundred and five participants with complete dietary data were mostly female and white. There was good agreement between HEI and PDQ scores at 12 months for less than a third of participants. Most of the disagreement arose from PDQ scores being higher than HEI scores. Even fewer participants had good agreement between HEI changes and PDQ changes. Participants perceived greater improvement in diet quality than indicated by HEI score changes. Concordance was low at 12 months and for change in diet quality. Despite the diet quality of adults seeking weight loss being suboptimal and not improving, many perceived their diet quality and diet quality improvements as better than calculated. Future studies might explore the effect of misperceptions on weight loss outcomes.
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.