ArticleBMJ nutrition, prevention & health2025
Evaluating nutritional and food cost assessments: cash-register receipts may be an alternative for FFQs - accuracy and feasibility in a dietary study.
Article in BMJ nutrition, prevention & health, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Comparing two dietary cost measurements at the individual level: 'Food Frequency Questionnaire (FFQ) and supermarkets prices' with 'cash-register-receipts-items'. Design: Method comparison study. Setting: A Vegan Israeli Study substudy. Participants: 30 participants were recruited using advertisements on social media. Main outcome measure: Average diet cost, energy and nutrients consumption, generated by: (1) items on receipts; (2) online FFQ with supermarkets prices. Analysis: Examining correlations between methods and generating Bland-Altman graphs. Results: Agreement between measurement tools increased when 'eating-away-from-home' dietary costs were omitted from the analysis, from differences of 1453 New Israeli Shekel (NIS)/28 days (414 US$/28 days) higher to 1010 NIS/28-days (288 US$/28days) lower compared with differences of 756 NIS/28 days (215 US$/28 days) higher to 1159 NIS/28 days (330 US$/28 days) lower. Moreover, the Pearson correlation between methods, which was r=0.29 (p=0.13), increased to r=0.52 (p<0.0042). Finally, Pearson correlations between questionnaire-based and receipt-based nutrients were: energy=0.58 (p=0.001); protein=0.46 (p=0.012); fat=0.50 (p=0.005); carbohydrates=0.76 (p<0.001); calcium=0.46 (p=0.012); and iron=0.37 (p=0.049). Conclusions and implications: The dietary cost of the 'FFQ-and-supermarket-prices' method is more strongly correlated and agreeable with the 'cash-register-receipts-items' method when 'eating-away-from-home' items are omitted, indicating that 'eating-away-from-home' costs are poorly estimated when using the standard 'FFQ-and-supermarket-prices' method. Finally, estimating energy, carbohydrates, protein, fat, calcium and iron using 'cash-register-receipts-items' is feasible.
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.