Validity and relative validity of a novel digital approach for 24-h dietary recall in athletes

Abstract

BackgroundWe developed a digital dietary analysis tool for athletes (DATA) using a modified 24-h recall method and an integrated, customized nutrient database. The purpose of this study was to assess DATA’s validity and relative validity by measuring its agreement with registered dietitians’ (RDs) direct observations (OBSERVATION) and 24-h dietary recall interviews using the USDA 5-step multiple-pass method (INTERVIEW), respectively.MethodsFifty-six athletes (14–20 y) completed DATA and INTERVIEW in randomized counter-balanced order. OBSERVATION (n = 26) consisted of RDs recording participants’ food/drink intake in a 24-h period and were completed the day prior to DATA and INTERVIEW. Agreement among methods was estimated using a repeated measures t-test and Bland-Altman analysis.ResultsThe paired differences (with 95% confidence intervals) between DATA and OBSERVATION were not significant for carbohydrate (10.1%, -1.2–22.7%) and protein (14.1%, -3.2–34.5%) but was significant for energy (14.4%, 1.2–29.3%). There were no differences between DATA and INTERVIEW for energy (-1.1%, -9.1–7.7%), carbohydrate (0.2%, -7.1–8.0%) or protein (-2.7%, -11.3–6.7%). Bland-Altman analysis indicated significant positive correlations between absolute values of the differences and the means for OBSERVATION vs. DATA (r = 0.40 and r = 0.47 for energy and carbohydrate, respectively) and INTERVIEW vs. DATA (r = 0.52, r = 0.29, and r = 0.61 for energy, carbohydrate, and protein, respectively). There were also wide 95% limits of agreement (LOA) for most method comparisons. The mean bias ratio (with 95% LOA) for OBSERVATION vs. DATA was 0.874 (0.551-1.385) for energy, 0.906 (0.522-1.575) for carbohydrate, and 0.895(0.395-2.031) for protein. The mean bias ratio (with 95% LOA) for INTERVIEW vs. DATA was 1.016 (0.538-1.919) for energy, 0.995 (0.563-1.757) for carbohydrate, and 1.031 (0.514-2.068) for protein.ConclusionDATA has good relative validity for group-level comparisons in athletes. However, there are large variations in the relative validity of individuals’ dietary intake estimates from DATA, particularly in athletes with higher energy and nutrient intakes. DATA can be a useful athlete-specific, digital alternative to conventional 24-h dietary recall methods at the group level. Further development and testing is needed to improve DATA’s validity for estimations of individual dietary intakes.

Validity of Dietary Assessment in Athletes: A Systematic Review

“…(Item 11); and "Were the subjects recruited over the same time period?" (Item 18) Only two studies [49,54] reported whether an attempt was made to blind those measuring the main outcomes of the intervention (i.e. Item 12) ( Table 5).…”

“…The current review identified a limited number of studies (n=7) which evaluated the validity of a novel dietary assessment tool or instrument compared to one or more reference method(s) [29,[49][50][51][52][53] and/or a biomarker in an athlete population [50,54]. Peer-reviewed version available at Nutrients 2017, 9, 1313; doi:10.3390/nu9121313 of acceptable validity for group level comparisons [49,51,54], individual agreement was not as strong, especially for athletes with high energy intakes [49,50,54]. A variety of statistical tests were used to assess study validity (e.g.…”

“…A variety of statistical tests were used to assess study validity (e.g. paired t-tests, correlation coefficients, Bland-Altman plots), however most studies used correlation coefficients [50,53] or intra-class correlation (ICC) to assess reproducibility [29,49]. Correlation coefficients can be misleading, as they measure the relationship between to methods, rather than the agreement between them [75].…”

“…Correlation coefficients can be misleading, as they measure the relationship between to methods, rather than the agreement between them [75]. Only one study validated the test method for food groups [53], while the other studies evaluated energy and/or nutrient intakes [29,[49][50][51][52]54]…”

“…Of the seven studies comparing reported intake by two or more methods of dietary assessment, four compared energy and/or macronutrient intake [49,[51][52][53], while the remaining three studies compared the intake of a specific nutrient (i.e. antioxidants, calcium, or protein) [29,50,54].…”