Trial reportEuropean journal of clinical nutrition2026
A comparison of personalized and fixed interval signal-contingent ecological momentary assessment to capture dietary data: a double-blinded crossover feasibility study.
Trial report in European journal of clinical nutrition, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesEcological momentary assessment (EMA) may address limitations of traditional dietary assessment methods such as high burden and memory bias, improving measurement in young adults with irregular eating patterns. This study assessed the feasibility (adherence, agreement, acceptability) of delivering EMA surveys at times personalized to young adults' (18-30 years) eating patterns compared to fixed interval EMA. SUBJECTS/
methodsTwenty-four participants (13 female; mean age 26.0, SD 2.1) were randomized to start with either the personalized or fixed EMA schedule in a double-blinded crossover trial. Personalized schedules were based on time-stamped food images collected before randomization. Adherence was response rate and agreement was the proportion of EMA responses that matched with simultaneously collected food images and 24-h recalls.
resultsAdherence was 65.7% (SD 14.8%) and 66.3% (SD 18.2%), and agreement was 52.0% (SD 18.5%) and 47.7% (SD 29.9%) for the fixed and personalized EMA schedules. Beverages were most frequently omitted when compared against food images and 24-h recalls. Both groups found survey length and recording duration acceptable, but a greater proportion in the fixed interval phase reported receiving too many EMA per day.
conclusionsPersonalizing EMA delivery to young adults' eating patterns did not improve adherence as, on average, there was a similar number of daily surveys whether personalised or our predefined six prompts and variability in timing of eating occasions made personalizing challenging. Future studies could explore advanced personalization, such as wearable sensor-triggered event-contingent EMA combined with images or digital entries to enhance accuracy while reducing burden.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41184462What 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.