ArticlePublic health nutrition2025
Examining intra- and inter-device reliability of pressure-mediated reflection spectroscopy in a multi-state sample of healthy adults.
Article in Public health nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preliminary trial findings from Harvest Share: a cost-offset community supported agriculture model to improve diet in New York City.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2026Trial
- Article
- Self-Reported Dietary Carotenoid Intake and Skin Carotenoid Score Status in a Geographically Diverse U.S. Sample.Nutrients · 2026Article
- Cluster-randomized controlled trial of a mobile produce market designed to address diet and food insecurity in underserved communities.BMC nutrition · 2026Article
- Beyond the plate: can a food-based science learning intervention improve preschool children's fruit and vegetable consumption?Public health nutrition · 2026Article
- Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial of a Mobile Produce Market designed to Address Diet and Food Insecurity in Underserved Communities.Research square · 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo examine the intra- and inter-device reliability of devices using pressure-mediated reflection spectroscopy (the Veggie Meter®).
designA cross-sectional research study was conducted across eight sites in the USA. Using two Veggie Meters® at each site, participants completed five, counter-balanced pairs of finger scans. Intra-device comparisons included intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) and calculation of the CV and 95 % CI of each device/site; hypothesised to be ≤ 6 %. Inter-device comparisons included ICC, absolute relative differences (ARD) and 95 % CI, and equivalence; both hypothesised to be ≤ 10 %.
settingEight sites across the USA.
participantsAcross sites, participants' (
resultsIntra-device ICC ranged from 0·77 to 0·99. The CV ranged from 6·2 to 14·2 %, with an average of 8·8 %. A majority (63 %;
conclusionsOur study demonstrates the intra-device and inter-device reliability to be moderate to high, as per ICC. The observed margin of difference within a device was up to 14 %, with an average of 9 %. The observed margin of difference between devices was up to 22 %, with an average of 14 % between devices.
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.