Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 313

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

Dietary assessment methods: dietary records.

Rosa María Ortega Anta, Carmen Pérez‐Rodrigo, Ana María López-Sobaler·2015·PubMed

Abstract

Dietary records or food diaries can be highlighted among dietary assessment methods of the current diet for their interest and validity. It is a prospective, open-ended survey method collecting data about the foods and beverages consumed over a previously specified period of time. Dietary records can be used to estimate current diet of individuals and population groups, as well as to identify groups at risk of inadequacy. It is a dietary assessment method interesting for its use in epidemiological or in clinical studies. High validity and precision has been reported for the method when used following adequate procedures and considering the sufficient number of days. Thus, dietary records are often considered as a reference method in validation studies. Nevertheless, the method is affected by error and has limitations due mainly to the tendency of subjects to report food consumption close to those socially desirable. Additional problems are related to the high burden posed on respondents. The method can also influence food behavior in respondents in order to simplify the registration of food intake and some subjects can experience difficulties in writing down the foods and beverages consumed or in describing the portion sizes. Increasing the number of days observed reduces the quality of completed diet records. It should also be considered the high cost of coding and processing information collected in diet records. One of the main advantages of the method is the registration of the foods and beverages as consumed, thus reducing the problem of food omissions due to memory failure. Weighted food records provide more precise estimates of consumed portions. New Technologies can be helpful to improve and ease collaboration of respondents, as well as precision of the estimates, although it would be desirable to evaluate the advantages and limitations in order to optimize the implementation.

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

OpenAlex · 10.3305/nh.2015.31.sup3.8749

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

Cited by

See all 313

Metadata

Authors
Anta, R. M. O., Pérez‐Rodrigo, C., & López-Sobaler, A. M.
Venue
PubMed
Publisher
National Institutes of Health
Published
2015-02-26
Volume
31 Suppl 3
Pages
38-45
OpenAlex
W1603539037
Cited by
313
References
1
FWCI
16.50
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: Dietary assessment methods: dietary records. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3305/nh.2015.31.sup3.8749
The paper
Anta, R. M. O., Pérez‐Rodrigo, C., & López-Sobaler, A. M. (2015). Dietary assessment methods: dietary records. PubMed. https://doi.org/10.3305/nh.2015.31.sup3.8749

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.