ReviewInternational journal of health sciences
Biting into accuracy: Evaluating food frequency questionnaires for denture wearers: A systematic review.
Review in International journal of health sciences. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Objectives: The correlation between denture usage and nutrition is a subject of ongoing debate, with numerous authors attempting to investigate it using food frequency questionnaires (FFQ). This systematic review aimed to assess the quality of research reporting on the use of FFQ as a tool for evaluating nutrient intake in individuals who wear dentures. Methods: Studies were sourced through online databases, encompassing publications from 1990 to 2024. Four studies employing FFQ to evaluate the nutritional status of denture wearers and meeting the specified inclusion-exclusion criteria were incorporated into this systematic review. Quality assessment of the included studies was independently conducted by two reviewers, utilizing the summary score provided by Dennis Results: All the studies included in the review utilized semi-quantitative FFQ, with most adopting the widely accepted and validated FFQ developed by Willet and Block. The majority of these studies received high-quality scores as per the assessment criteria established by Dennis Conclusion: The articles included in the review, along with their quality assessments, provided insights into various aspects of FFQ design that enhance validity. These include the comprehensiveness of items covered, frequency of intake reporting, accuracy of portion size calculations, choice of reference technique, and method of delivery. It was observed that the majority of studies favored the interview administration of FFQ, which was deemed to be more reliable and acceptable during quality analysis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39502430PMC11533186What 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.