The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Validity of the assessment of dietary intake: problems of misreporting
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This is a review of recent studies on the analysis of misreporting of food intake and on the consequences of misreporting for the interpretation of dietary surveys. Bias in the assessment of dietary intake was analysed from studies comparing reported intake with doubly labelled water assessed energy expenditure. RECENT FINDINGS: There is not yet a method for the accurate determination of dietary intake. Physical and psychological characteristics of study participants play an important role in the observed reporting bias. The degree of misreporting might increase with repeated dietary assessment in the same subjects, confounding the results of intervention studies. SUMMARY: Campaigns aimed at changing food intake might not be as successful as concluded from the results of national food consumption measurements. Subjects might be reporting according to expected instead of real intake. In a clinical setting, the increased awareness of the nursing staff has been observed to result in overreporting of intake.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
The validity of self-reported energy intake as determined using the doubly labelled water technique
Hill, R. J., & Davies, P. S. W. (2001) · British Journal of Nutrition · doi:10.1079/bjn2000281 · Cited by 589
BLACK, A. E., & COLE, T. J. (2001) · Journal of the American Dietetic Association · doi:10.1016/s0002-8223(01)00018-9 · Cited by 249
Do we eat less fat, or just report so?
Heitmann, B., Lissner, L., & Osler, M. (2000) · International Journal of Obesity · doi:10.1038/sj.ijo.0801176 · Cited by 235
Dietary-Fat Intake in the US Population
Kennedy, E. T., Bowman, S. A., & Powell, R. (1999) · Journal of the American College of Nutrition · doi:10.1080/07315724.1999.10718853 · Cited by 116
Cited by
Wycherley, T. P., Moran, L. J., Clifton, P. M., Noakes, M., & Brinkworth, G. D. (2012) · The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.3945/ajcn.112.044321 · Cited by 606
Sex differences in the physiology of eating
Asarian, L., & Geary, N. (2013) · American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology · doi:10.1152/ajpregu.00446.2012 · Cited by 513
Rong, Y., Chen, L., Zhu, T., Song, Y., Yu, M., Shan, Z., Sands, A., Hu, F. B., & Liu, L. (2013) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.e8539 · Cited by 364
Westerterp, K. R., & Speakman, J. R. (2008) · International Journal of Obesity · doi:10.1038/ijo.2008.74 · Cited by 269
Self-citationAppetite sensations and satiety quotient: Predictors of energy intake and weight loss
Drapeau, V., King, N., Hetherington, M., Doucet, E., Blundell, J., & Tremblay, A. (2007) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/j.appet.2006.08.002 · Cited by 248
Metadata
- Authors
- Westerterp, K. R., & Goris, A. H. C.
- Venue
- Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition and Metabolic Care
- Published
- 2002-09
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 489-493
- ISSN
- 1363-1950 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2326746446
- Cited by
- 279
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 4.00
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Validity of the assessment of dietary intake: problems of misreporting. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00075197-200209000-00006
- The paper
- Westerterp, K. R., & Goris, A. H. C. (2002). Validity of the assessment of dietary intake: problems of misreporting. Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition and Metabolic Care. https://doi.org/10.1097/00075197-200209000-00006
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.
