2014
DOI: 10.4178/epih/e2014009
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Dietary assessment methods in epidemiologic studies

Abstract: Diet is a major lifestyle-related risk factor of various chronic diseases. Dietary intake can be assessed by subjective report and objective observation. Subjective assessment is possible using open-ended surveys such as dietary recalls or records, or using closed-ended surveys including food frequency questionnaires. Each method has inherent strengths and limitations. Continued efforts to improve the accuracy of dietary intake assessment and enhance its feasibility in epidemiological studies have been made. T… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

8
916
2
19

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1,091 publications
(945 citation statements)
references
References 56 publications
8
916
2
19
Order By: Relevance
“…While dietary assessment methods used in US (156) or UK (157) studies have previously been compiled, the current review is the first to specifically focus on systematically identifying and describing instruments that can be used to assess intake of F&V in pan-European studies. As European-wide interventions to promote the consumption of F&V are further developed, valid instruments that can assess and monitor intake in a standardised and comparable way across Europe are essential.…”
Section: Public Health Nutritionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…While dietary assessment methods used in US (156) or UK (157) studies have previously been compiled, the current review is the first to specifically focus on systematically identifying and describing instruments that can be used to assess intake of F&V in pan-European studies. As European-wide interventions to promote the consumption of F&V are further developed, valid instruments that can assess and monitor intake in a standardised and comparable way across Europe are essential.…”
Section: Public Health Nutritionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The review is limited in its focus to pan-European studies, as the aim was to identify instruments used in European populations and to provide a selection of methods which may be applied to future studies based in these countries. However, this does not preclude the fact that additional instruments and innovative methods (157) that have been used and validated as part of large-scale nonEuropean studies, such as the US NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey) (158) , may be suitable for assessing intakes across Europe. In some cases, a copy of the original instrument or article that detailed characteristics of the assessment method could not be identified and the description provided may be limited as a result.…”
Section: Public Health Nutritionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, FFQ responses are subject to systematic and random errors, which may have affected the results [39], although our sensitivity analysis did not indicate a systematic error which, together with the use of meal size and protein proportion as adjusting variables, gives additional strength to our findings. Furthermore, the chosen method was logistically preferable to the use of interview-based assessments, due to the large number of participants [40]. The use of accelerometers to objectively measure physical activity allowed data collection for only 1 week, although this approach may be preferable to the assessment of self-recalled physical activity, considering the effects of recall bias [16].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The basic clinical, demographic, and genetic data were taken from a previous study. The dietary data for this study were specifically collected through a 24-hour dietary recall questionnaire (17). The study subjects were grouped on the basis of BMI and waist circumference, obesity traits, and hypertension among FTO gene variants.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%