ArticleEuropean journal of clinical nutrition2024
Assessment of the Dutch Healthy Diet index 2015 in the Lifelines cohort study at baseline.
Article in European journal of clinical nutrition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDietary indices are useful measures to investigate associations between dietary intake and disease development. The Dutch Healthy Diet index 2015 (DHD2015-index), a measure of diet quality, assesses adherence to the 2015 Dutch dietary guidelines. We assessed the DHD2015-index in the Lifelines cohort study, and compared calculations from basic and detailed dietary intake data. This article replaces the retracted article that was published on 16 May 2022 [1].
methodsDietary intake was assessed with a specially developed Food Frequency Questionnaire (FFQ) called Flower-FFQ, which consists of one main questionnaire (heart-FFQ), which asks for intakes of major food groups, and three complementary questionnaires (petal-FFQs), which ask for detailed information on food types within major food groups of the heart-FFQ. The DHD2015-index was assessed using data from the total Flower-FFQ (for 56,982 participants), and using data from the heart-FFQ only (for 129,030 participants). Agreement between the two indices was assessed with correlation and cross-classification.
resultsThe median (25th-75th percentile) DHD2015-index score was 75 (65-85) for men and 81 (70-91) for women based on the Flower-FFQ, and 68 (58-77) for men and 73 (63-82) for women based on the heart-FFQ. The Kendall's tau-b correlation coefficient between the two scores was 0.67 for men and 0.66 for women. Cross-classification into quartiles of the DHD2015-index showed that 59-60% of participants were classified in the same quartile, 36-37% in the adjacent, and 4% in the non-adjacent.
conclusionDietary data from the Flower-FFQ provide the most optimal information to assess the DHD2015-index. However, the DHD2015-index from the heart-FFQ showed good agreement with the index from the Flower-FFQ of ranking participants according to diet quality, and can be used when the DHD2015 index from the Flower-FFQ is not available.
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.