ReviewFrontiers in nutrition2024
A systematic review of dietary data collection methodologies for diet diversity indicators.
Review in Frontiers in nutrition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Completion Rates of Food Frequency Questionnaires and Food Records in People with Chronic Conditions: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Nutrients · 2026Pooled it
- Nutritional Variation Among Foods Included in an Ecuadorian Food Composition Database Using Multivariate Analysis.Nutrients · 2026Article
- The Effect of Food Value Chain Interventions on Food Security in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Food science & nutrition · 2026Review
- Healthy Diet Metrics for Children and Adolescents and Their Suitability for Global Monitoring: A Critical Review.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2026Review
- Article
- VolE: A point-cloud framework for food 3D reconstruction and volume estimation.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Associations between early childhood appetitive traits and dietary diversity in school-age children: a two-year longitudinal follow-up study.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Trends and socioeconomic factors associated with low available food variety among Peruvian households: 2015-2024.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Seeding food security: Overcoming barriers to quality potato seed adoption among smallholders in Kenya.PloS one · 2026Article
- Diet to Data: Validation of a Bias-Mitigating Nutritional Screener Using Assembly Theory.Nutrients · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of the current study was to critically assess the gaps in the existing methodologies of dietary data collection for diet diversity indicators. The study proposed the importance of smartphone application to overcome the drawbacks. The review paper identified and assessed the conventional methodologies used in diet diversity indicators including Minimum Dietary Diversity for Women (MDD-W), Minimum Dietary Diversity of Infant and Young Child Feeding Practices (IYCF-MDD), and Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS). The 80 research studies from 38 countries were critically assessed on the basis of their research aim, study design, target audience, dietary data collection methodology, sample size, dietary data type, dietary data collection frequency, and location point of dietary data collection. Results indicated that most studies employed interviewer-administered 24-h recall assessing the dietary diversity. The review paper concluded that smartphone application had potential to overcome the identified limitations of conventional methodologies including recall bias, social-desirability bias, interviewer training, and cost-time constraints.
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.