ArticleThe American journal of clinical nutrition2025
Measurement error in total energy intake in the United Kingdom National Diet and Nutrition Survey (2008-2015).
Article in The American journal of clinical nutrition, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMeasurement error in the estimation of energy intake (EI) from self-reported dietary assessment is a common phenomenon, which can lead to implications for epidemiological studies and surveys that aim to determine relationships between diet and health.
objectivesThe aim of this study was to examine measurement error in estimated EIs within the UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS, 2008-2015), to determine the degree of error, if measurement error has changed over the course of data collection periods, and to identify any related associations.
methodsData from 770 (383 males and 387 females) participants from the UK NDNS recruited between 2008 and 2011 and 2013 and 2015 who had height and weight measurements, ≥3 of 4 diet diary days, and total energy expenditure estimations using the doubly labeled water (DLW) method were used for this secondary analysis study. Data were obtained via the UK Data Service (https://ukdataservice.ac.uk/).
resultsOverall, when compared with DLW total energy expenditure measurements, EI from self-report dietary data was underestimated by 27% [95% confidence interval (CI): 25, 28%], and did not differ significantly in combined age/sex strata between survey years 2008-2011 and survey years 2013-2015 (25%; 95% CI: 23, 27% compared with 28%; 95% CI: 26, 31%, respectively). Likewise, measurement error in reported EI in the majority of age/sex strata generally remained stable. Measurement error in reported EI was associated with body mass index (-0.02 ratio units per kg/m
conclusionsWe show that although measurement error in estimation of EI is evident within the UK NDNS, it has remained similar. Measurement error was associated with body mass index, age, and sex.
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.