ArticleAsia Pacific journal of clinical nutrition2026
Concordance evaluation of a nutrition self-assessment app and clinical experts in estimating energy requirements and deficits among ONS consumers.
Article in Asia Pacific 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesThe Nutrition Self-Assessment App (APP), a novel smartphone-based tool, was developed to enable users of oral nutritional supplements (ONSs) to self-assess total energy expenditure (TEE) and identify energy deficits, providing personalized ONS recommendations. By integrating step-count track-ing and dietary intake reporting, the app estimates physical activity levels and energy deficits. However, validation against clinician assessments is essential prior to large-scale implementation. METHODS AND STUDY
designIn this multicenter cross-sectional study (October-November 2023), TEE and deficits were evaluated using both the app and clinician assessments. Statistical analyses included paired t-tests, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), and Bland-Altman plots. Clinician satisfaction was measured via a 5-point Likert scale.
resultsAmong 423 ONS users, no significant differences were found between clinician- and app-derived estimates for TEE (1606.2 ± 287.2 vs. 1541.6 ± 300.5 kcal/day, p >0.05) or energy deficits (610.4 ± 376.9 vs. 600.1 ± 384.6 kcal/day, p >0.05). Agreement was moderate for TEE (ICC = 0.66) and excellent for deficits (ICC = 0.94). Bland-Altman analysis showed 93.9% (397/423) of deficit differences within 95% limits of agreement. Clinicians rated the app as "very satisfied" (46.1%) or "fairly satisfied" (37.1%) for most participants.
conclusionsThe app demonstrated moderate agreement with clinician assessments for TEE estimation, while showing high agreement in energy deficit estimation. These findings validate its potential reliabil-ity as a supportive tool for ONS management. Its integration of activity tracking and dietary monitoring supports scalable implementation to improve ONS adherence.
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.