ArticleDietetics (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Comparing Self-Reported Dietary Intake to Provided Diet during a Randomized Controlled Feeding Intervention: A Pilot Study.
Article in Dietetics (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Low-Intensity Nutrition Intervention Targeting Triglycerides in Gestational Diabetes: A Feasibility RCT.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2025Trial
- Aerobic exercise elevates perceived appetite but does not modify energy intake over a 3-day postexercise period: A pilot study.Physiological reports · 2024Trial
- Quantitative Food Compounds Enable Dietary Ontology Referencing across 500 Foods and Human Plasma.Analytical chemistry · 2026Article
- Hidden Malnutrition in Overweight and Obese Individuals with Chronic Heart Failure: Insights from the Pro-HEART Trial.Nutrients · 2025Article
- Beyond "validated": the need for more rigorous reporting of food frequency questionnaire validation metrics in nutritional epidemiology.European journal of nutrition · 2025Article
- 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Systematic and random errors based on self-reported diet may bias estimates of dietary intake. The objective of this pilot study was to describe errors in self-reported dietary intake by comparing 24 h dietary recalls to provided menu items in a controlled feeding study. This feeding study was a parallel randomized block design consisting of a standard diet (STD; 15% protein, 50% carbohydrate, 35% fat) followed by either a high-fat (HF; 15% protein, 25% carbohydrate, 60% fat) or a high-carbohydrate (HC; 15% protein, 75% carbohydrate, 10% fat) diet. During the intervention, participants reported dietary intake in 24 h recalls. Participants included 12 males (seven HC, five HF) and 12 females (six HC, six HF). The Nutrition Data System for Research was utilized to quantify energy, macronutrients, and serving size of food groups. Statistical analyses assessed differences in 24 h dietary recalls vs. provided menu items, considering intervention type (STD vs. HF vs. HC) (Student's
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.