ArticleNutrition journal2026
Agreement between a new web-based and a legacy paper-based food frequency questionnaires in French-speaking Switzerland.
Article in Nutrition journal, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUpdated and validated tools are crucial for assessing dietary intake. In French-speaking Switzerland, the only validated food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) was a paper-based version developed using data collected in 1990s. A new Swiss electronic FFQ (eFFQ) has recently been developed based on nationally representative dietary data from 2010s. The eFFQ has been recently validated and is intended for adoption in future studies among French-speaking adults living in Switzerland. Both FFQs differ in format (paper vs. electronic), food lists, frequency categories, portion sizes, and food composition databases. We aimed to compare dietary intake estimates from the recently developed eFFQ vs. the paper-based FFQ.
methodsWe recruited 75 volunteers aged 18 to 75 years (54.7% female) who completed both FFQs in random order. Intakes of energy, 10 macronutrients, four micronutrients and 28 food groups were estimated using each FFQ and compared using multiple statistical tests.
resultsGroup-level estimates of energy and most nutrients showed good agreement between FFQs, with differences in median intakes < 10% for 8 of 14 nutrients, including energy, protein, carbohydrates, total sugars, total fat, and saturated fatty acids (SFAs). Largest differences were observed for alcohol (+ 119% in the eFFQ), fibre (+ 37%), polyunsaturated fatty acids (+ 27%), and cholesterol (+ 26%). Spearman’s correlation coefficients (SCCs) were ≥ 0.50 for 12 of 14 nutrients, and misclassification into opposite tertiles (> 10% of participants) was observed only for SFAs (13%). Bland-Altman analysis confirmed acceptable agreement for energy and macronutrient intakes. At the food group level, the eFFQ yielded significantly higher median intakes for 14 of 28 food groups – most notably plant-based protein-rich foods and cream, fatty sauces & other fats – and lower median intakes for four groups, including vegetables and fish. Ranking agreement was acceptable for most food groups (SCCs = 0.57–0.91) but weaker for water (0.07); vegetable oil (0.42); cream, fatty sauces & other fats (0.33); and mixed dishes & soups (0.47).
conclusionsThe new eFFQ demonstrated good relative agreement with the previous paper-based FFQ, particularly for ranking individuals. These findings provide valuable information for researchers and policy makers comparing results of both FFQs over time and across populations.
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.