ArticleBMJ nutrition, prevention & health2024
Adaptation and validation of the EPIC-Norfolk food frequency questionnaire for assessing dietary intake in Ukrainian adults.
Article in BMJ nutrition, prevention & health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Relative Validity of Food Frequency Questionnaires in Adult Populations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Food science & nutrition · 2026Review
- Article
- Development and validation of a food frequency questionnaire for national nutrition surveillance among Malaysian adolescents and adults.Journal of nutritional science · 2026Article
- Beyond "validated": the need for more rigorous reporting of food frequency questionnaire validation metrics in nutritional epidemiology.European journal of nutrition · 2025Article
- Reproducibility and validity of a food frequency questionnaire for nutrient intakes in the study areas of large-scale cohort studies in Japan.Nagoya journal of medical science · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Currently, there are no validated food frequency questionnaires (FFQs) for evaluating nutrient intake in Ukrainian adults. This study aimed to adapt and validate the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer Food Frequency Questionnaire (EPIC-Norfolk FFQ) for this population group. Methods: Adults aged 18-54 years (n=90) living in different regions of Ukraine completed the new Ukrainian version of the EPIC-Norfolk FFQ and provided information about their 24-hour dietary recall. Raw and energy-adjusted data were analysed using Spearman's correlation coefficients, Wilcoxon signed-ranks test, cross-classification method, weighted kappa and Bland-Altman analysis. Results: Correlations ranged from 0.0738 (retinol equivalents) to 0.458 (total energy and phosphorus) and were statistically significant for all nutrients except cholesterol and vitamin A (as retinol and retinol equivalents). The percentage of participants classified into the same and adjacent quartiles ranged from 61.11% (vitamin A as retinol equivalents) to 81.11% (vitamin D). Gross misclassification into the opposite quartile ranged from 3.33% (magnesium) to 10% (cholesterol, vitamin A as retinol and retinol equivalents). Using the weighted kappa, most nutrients had a fair agreement (ĸ=0.21-0.40). Energy adjustment did not affect the results for most nutrients. Bland-Altman plots confirmed overestimation of the absolute intake of most nutrients and appeared to underestimate total sugars intake by FFQ; nevertheless, there was good agreement between the two methods. Conclusion: The new Ukrainian version of the FFQ demonstrated reasonable relative validity for ranking an individual's nutrient intake. The overestimation of the absolute intake of most nutrients is comparable to or even less than that in other FFQ validation studies. We cannot recommend the current Ukrainian version of the FFQ for the assessment of vitamin A (as retinol and retinol equivalents) consumption because of significant differences in results between the two methods.
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.