Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 262

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Estimating under-reporting of energy intake in dietary surveys using an individualised method

Open access
Rennie, Kirsten L., Coward, Andy, Jebb, Susan A.·2007·British Journal of Nutrition

Abstract

Under-reporting (UR) of energy intake (EI) by self-reported dietary methods is well-documented but the methods used to estimate UR in population-based studies commonly assume a sedentary lifestyle. We compared estimated UR using individualised estimates of energy requirements with a population cut-off based on minimum energy needs. UR was estimated for 1551 adults aged 19–64 years enrolled in the National Diet and Nutrition Survey. Physical activity diaries and 7 d weighed dietary records were completed concurrently. Mean daily EI (kJ/d) was calculated from the dietary records. Reported physical activity was used to assign each subject's activity level, and then to calculate estimated energy requirements (EER) from published equations. UR was calculated both as EER – EI with an adjustment for daily EER and EI variation, and also by a population method. By the individual method UR was approximately 27 % of energy needs in men and 29 % in women, with 75 % of men and 77 % of women classified as under-reporters; by the population method 80 and 88 % were classified as under-reporters respectively. When subjects who reported their eating being affected by dieting or illness during dietary recording were excluded, UR was 25 % of energy needs in both sexes. UR was higher in overweight and obese men and women compared with their lean counterparts (P < 0·001). UR of EI must be considered in dietary surveys. The EER method allows UR to be quantified and takes into account an individual's activity level. Measures of physical activity and questions to identify under-eating during dietary recording may help to evaluate secular trends in UR.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0007114507433086

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Rennie, K. L., Coward, A., & Jebb, S. A.
Venue
British Journal of Nutrition
Published
2007-06
Volume
97
Issue
6
Pages
1169-1176
ISSN
  • 0007-1145 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-2662
OpenAlex
W2147940750
Cited by
262
References
4
FWCI
9.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.