CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 213Nutritional Studies and DietNutrition and Health StudiesSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Procedures for screening out inaccurate reports of dietary energy intake

Open access
Mccrory, Megan A, Hajduk, Cheryl L, Roberts, Susan B·2002·Public Health Nutrition
DOI 10.1079/phn2002387
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Objective: To review existing methods and illustrate the use of a new, simple method for identifying inaccurate reports of dietary energy intake (rEI). Design: Comparison of rEI with energy requirements estimated by using total energy expenditure predicted (pTEE) from age, weight, height and sex using a previously published equation. Propagation of error calculations was performed and cut-offs for excluding rEI at plus or minus two standard deviations (±2 SD) and ±1 SD for the agreement between rEI and pTEE were established. Setting: Dietary survey in a US national cohort: the Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII), 1994–96. Subjects: Men and non-pregnant, non-lactating women aged 21–45 years in the CSFII who provided two multiple-pass 24-hour recalls, height and weight(n = 3755). Results: Average rEI was 77% of pTEE in men, and 64% of pTEE in women. Calculated cut-offs were rEI <40% or >160% of pTEE (±2 SD) and <70% or >130% of pTEE (±1 SD), respectively. Use of only the ±1 SD cut-offs, not the ±2 SD cut-offs, resulted in a relationship between rEI and body weight similar to what was expected (based on an independently calculated relationship between rEI and measured TEE). Exclusion of rEI outside either the ±2 SD (11% of subjects) or ±1 SD (57% of subjects) cut-offs did not affect mean reported macronutrient intakes, but did markedly affect relationships between dietary composition and body mass index. Conclusions: When examining relationships between diet and health, use of ±1 SD cut-offs may be preferable to ±2 SD cut-offs for excluding inaccurate dietary reports.

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 · 10.1079/phn2002387

Cites

49 of 49 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 53 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. 1998, CSFII/DHKS 1994–96 Data Set and Documentation: The 1994–96 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals and the 1994–96 Diet and Health Knowledge Survey
  2. 1965, Energy and Protein Requirements: Report of a Joint FAO/WHO/UNU Expert Consultation

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 213

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Mccrory, M. A., Hajduk, C. L., & Roberts, S. B.
Affiliations
Tufts University (US)
Corresponding author
Mccrory, Megan A
ORCID
Venue
Public Health Nutrition
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2002-12
Volume
5
Issue
6a
Pages
873-882
ISSN
  • 1368-9800 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-2727
DOI
10.1079/phn2002387
OpenAlex
W2130305327
Cited by
213
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 11
FWCI
0.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 1482 d)
Locations
  • Public Health Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Agriculture (58-1950-9-001)
  • National Institutes of Health (58-1950-9-001)
  • Agricultural Research Service (58-1950-9-001)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (5 F32 DK09747-03, F32DK009747)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutrition and Health Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
Keywords
energy intake, 24-hour dietary recall, energy requirements, body mass index, macronutrient intake
MeSH terms
Adult, Energy Intake, Diet, Energy Metabolism, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, United States, Reproducibility of Results

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