SummaryA systematic review and meta-analyses were conducted to evaluate the effects of interventions to reduce sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) or increase water intakes and to examine the impact of behaviour change techniques (BCTs) in consumption patterns. Randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials published after January 1990 and until December 2016 reporting daily changes in intakes of SSB or water in volumetric measurements (mL d À1 ) were included. References were retrieved through searches of electronic databases and quality appraisal followed Cochrane principles. We calculated mean differences (MD) and synthesized data with random-effects models. Forty studies with 16 505 participants were metaanalysed. Interventions significantly decreased consumption of SSB in children by 76 mL d À1 (95% confidence interval [CI] À105 to À46; 23 studies, P < 0.01), and in adolescents (À66 mL d À1 , 95% CI À130 to À2; 5 studies, P = 0.04) but not in adults (À13 mL d À1 , 95% CI À44 to 18; 12 studies, P = 0.16). Pooled estimates of water intakes were only possible for interventions in children, and results were indicative of increases in water intake (MD +67 mL d À1, 95% CI 6 to 128; 7 studies, P = 0.04). For children, there was evidence to suggest that modelling/demonstrating the behaviour helped to reduce SSB intake and that interventions within the home environment had greater effects than school-based interventions. In conclusion, public health interventions -mainly via nutritional education/counselling -are moderately successful at reducing intakes of SSB and increasing water intakes in children. However, on average, only small reductions in SSBs have been achieved by interventions targeting adolescents and adults. Complementary measures may be needed to achieve greater improvements in both dietary behaviours across all age groups.

BackgroundDietary assessment is complex, and strategies to select the most appropriate dietary assessment tool (DAT) in epidemiological research are needed. The DIETary Assessment Tool NETwork (DIET@NET) aimed to establish expert consensus on Best Practice Guidelines (BPGs) for dietary assessment using self-report.MethodsThe BPGs were developed using the Delphi technique. Two Delphi rounds were conducted. A total of 131 experts were invited, and of these 65 accepted, with 48 completing Delphi round I and 51 completing Delphi round II. In all, a total of 57 experts from North America, Europe, Asia and Australia commented on the 47 suggested guidelines.ResultsForty-three guidelines were generated, grouped into the following four stages: Stage I. Define what is to be measured in terms of dietary intake (what? who? and when?); Stage II. Investigate different types of DATs; Stage III. Evaluate existing tools to select the most appropriate DAT by evaluating published validation studies; Stage IV. Think through the implementation of the chosen DAT and consider sources of potential biases.ConclusionsThe Delphi technique consolidated expert views on best practice in assessing dietary intake. The BPGs provide a valuable guide for health researchers to choose the most appropriate dietary assessment method for their studies. These guidelines will be accessible through the Nutritools website, www.nutritools.org.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12916-017-0962-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

behalf of the DIET@NET consortium (2020) A systematic review of reviews identifying UK validated dietary assessment tools for inclusion on an interactive guided website for researchers: www.nutritools.org, Critical Reviews in ABSTRACT Background: Health researchers may struggle to choose suitable validated dietary assessment tools (DATs) for their target population. The aim of this review was to identify and collate information on validated UK DATs and validation studies for inclusion on a website to support researchers to choose appropriate DATs. Design: A systematic review of reviews of DATs was undertaken. DATs validated in UK populations were extracted from the studies identified. A searchable website was designed to display these data. Additionally, mean differences and limits of agreement between test and comparison methods were summarized by a method, weighting by sample size. Results: Over 900 validation results covering 5 life stages, 18 nutrients, 6 dietary assessment methods, and 9 validation method types were extracted from 63 validated DATs which were identified from 68 reviews. These were incorporated into www.nutritools.org. Limits of agreement were determined for about half of validations. Thirty four DATs were FFQs. Only 17 DATs were validated against biomarkers, and only 19 DATs were validated in infant/children/adolescents. Conclusions: The interactive www.nutritools.org website holds extensive validation data identified from this review and can be used to guide researchers to critically compare and choose a suitable DAT for their research question, leading to improvement of nutritional epidemiology research.

Background: Measuring dietary intake in children and adolescents can be challenging due to misreporting, difficulties in establishing portion size and reliance on recording dietary data via proxy reporters. The aim of this review was to present results from a recent systematic review of reviews reporting and comparing validated dietary assessment tools used in younger populations in the UK. Methods: Validation data for dietary assessment tools used in younger populations (≤18 years) were extracted and summarised using results from a systematic review of reviews of validated dietary assessment tools. Mean differences and Bland-Altman limits of agreement (LOA) between the test and reference tool were extracted or calculated and compared for energy, macronutrients and micronutrients.Results: Seventeen studies which reported validation of 14 dietary assessment tools (DATs) were identified with relevant nutrition information. The most commonly validated nutrients were energy, carbohydrate, protein, fat, calcium, iron, folate and vitamin C. There were no validated DATs reporting assessment of zinc, iodine or selenium intake. The most frequently used reference method was the weighed food diary, followed by doubly labelled water and 24 h recall. Summary plots were created to facilitate comparison between tools. On average, the test tools reported higher mean intakes than the reference methods with some studies consistently reporting wide LOA. Out of the 14 DATs, absolute values for LOA and mean difference were obtained for 11 DATs for EI. From the 24 validation results assessing EI, 16 (67%) reported higher mean intakes than the reference. Of the seven (29%) validation studies using doubly labelled water (DLW) as the reference, results for the test DATs were not substantially better or worse than those using other reference measures. Further information on the studies from this review is available on the www.nutritools.org website.Conclusions: Validated dietary assessment tools for use with children and adolescents in the UK have been identified and compared. Whilst tools are generally validated for macronutrient intakes, micronutrients are poorly evaluated. Validation studies that include estimates of zinc, selenium, dietary fibre, sugars and sodium are needed.

Background Measuring dietary intake is difficult, and strategies that enable researchers to select the most appropriate dietary assessment tools are needed. The aim of this work was to improve the quality of dietary data collected in epidemiological studies. Therefore, the DIETary Assessment Tools NETwork (DIET@NET) partnership, a network of scientific experts, has created the Nutritools website. Methods Development of the Nutritools website was divided into three strands: creation of best practice guidelines, developed with the Delphi technique to obtain expert views (the guidelines enable researchers to choose the most appropriate dietary assessment tool for their work); creation of an interactive dietary assessment tool e-library, with eligible dietary assessment tools being identified through a systematic review of reviews that searched seven databases; and creation of an online interface between food tables and dietary assessment tools-namely, the Food Questionnaire Creator (FQC). The work was guided by the DIET@NET partnership.