ArticleJMIR human factors2025
NutriDiary, a Smartphone-Based Dietary Record App: Description and Usability Evaluation.
Article in JMIR human factors, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Participant food tracking in psychiatric ketogenic metabolic therapy: an unresolved clinical, psychosocial, and implementation question.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Review
- Design and usability of Abu Dhabi Food Intake24: a culturally adapted digital 24-hour dietary recall for the United Arab Emirates.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Development of a novel web-based platform to support culturally and medically tailored comprehensive nutrition assessments: SPICE-Healthcare.JAMIA open · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Repeated applications of short-term dietary assessment instruments are recommended for estimating usual dietary intake. For this purpose, NutriDiary, a smartphone app for collecting weighed dietary records (WDRs) in the German population, was developed. Objective: We aim to describe NutriDiary and evaluate its usability and acceptability. Methods: NutriDiary was developed as a WDR, allowing users to enter food items via text search, barcode scanning, or free text entry. The sample for the evaluation study included 74 participants (n=51, 69% female, aged 18-64 years), including 27 (37.5%) experts and 47 (63.5%) laypersons (including n=22, 30%, nutrition students). Participants completed a 1-day WDR and entered a predefined sample meal (n=17 foods) the following day by using NutriDiary. An evaluation questionnaire was answered from which the system usability scale (SUS) score (0-100) was calculated. A backward selection procedure (PROC REG in SAS; SAS Institute) was used to identify potential predictors for the SUS score (age, sex, status [expert or laypersons], and operating system [iOS or Android]). Results: The median SUS score of 75 (IQR 63-88) indicated good usability. Age was the only characteristic identified as a potential predictor for a lower SUS score (P<.001). The median completion time for an individual WDR was 35 (IQR 19-52) minutes. Older participants took longer to enter the data than younger ones (18-30 y: median 1.5, IQR 1.1-2.0 min/item vs 45-64 y: median 1.8, IQR 1.3-2.3 min/item). Most participants expressed a preference for NutriDiary over the traditional paper-based method. Conclusions: Good usability and acceptability make NutriDiary promising for use in epidemiological studies.
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.