Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 412

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Epidemiological assessment of diet: a comparison of a 7-day diary with a food frequency questionnaire using urinary markers of nitrogen, potassium and sodium

Day, N.·2001·International Journal of Epidemiology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Validation studies of dietary instruments developed for epidemiological studies have typically used some form of diet record as the standard for comparison. Recent work suggests that comparison with diet record may overestimate the ability of the epidemiological instrument to measure habitual dietary intake, due to lack of independence of the measurement errors. The degree of regression dilution in estimating diet-disease association may therefore have been correspondingly underestimated. Use of biochemical measures of intake may mitigate the problem. In this paper, we report on the use of urinary measures of intakes of nitrogen, potassium and sodium to compare the performance of a semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) and a 7-day diet diary (7DD) to estimate average intake of these nutrients over one year. METHODS: In all, 179 individuals were asked to complete an FFQ and a 7DD on two occasions separated by approximately 12 months. The individuals were also asked to provide 24-hour urine samples on six occasions over a 6-9-month period, covering the time at which the record FFQ and 7DD were completed. The urine was assayed for nitrogen, potassium and sodium. The protocol was completed by 123 individuals. The data from these individuals were analysed to estimate the covariance structure of the measurement errors of the FFQ, the 7DD and a single 24-hour urine measurement, and to estimate the degree of regression dilution associated with the FFQ and 7DD. RESULTS: The results demonstrated that: (1) the error variances for each of the three nutrients was more than twice as great with the FFQ than the 7DD; (2) there was substantial correlation (0.46-0.58) between the error of both the FFQ and the 7DD completed on different occasions; (3) there was moderate correlation (0.24- 0.29) between the error in the FFQ and the error in the 7DD for each nutrient; (4) the correlation between errors in different nutrients was higher for the FFQ (0.77-0.80) than for the 7DD (0.52-0.70). CONCLUSIONS: The regression dilution with the FFQ is considerably greater than with the 7DD and also, for the nutrients considered, greater than would be inferred if validation studies were based solely on record or diary type instruments.

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 · 10.1093/ije/30.2.309

Cites

1 of 1 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

Cited by

See all 412

Metadata

Authors
Day, N.
Venue
International Journal of Epidemiology
Published
2001-04-01
Volume
30
Issue
2
Pages
309-317
ISSN
  • 0300-5771 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-3685
OpenAlex
W2148346218
Cited by
412
References
1
FWCI
16.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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.