CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 31

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Relative Validity and Reproducibility of a Food Frequency Questionnaire to Assess Energy Intake from Minimally Processed and Ultra-Processed Foods in Young Children

Fangupo, Louise J., Haszard, Jillian J., Leong, Claudia, Heath, Anne-Louise M., Fleming, Elizabeth A., Taylor, Rachael W.·2019·Nutrients
DOI 10.3390/nu11061290PMC PMC6627316
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

NOVA is a food classification system that categorises food items into one of four categories according to the extent and purpose of their processing: minimally processed food (MPF), processed culinary ingredient (PCI), processed food (PF), or ultra-processed food (UPF). The aim of this study was to determine the relative validity and reproducibility of a food frequency questionnaire (EAT5 FFQ) for measuring daily energy intake (EI kJ) and percentage of daily energy intake (EI%) from each NOVA group in New Zealand children. One hundred parents of five year old children completed the 123 item EAT5 FFQ on two occasions four weeks apart. A 3 day weighed diet record (WDR) was completed on non-consecutive randomly assigned days between FFQ appointments. The FFQ overestimated EI (both as kJ and %) from MPF and UPF, and underestimated intakes from PCI and PF, compared with the WDR. Bland–Altman plots indicated reasonably consistent agreement between FFQ and WDR for MPF and UPF but not PCI or PF. Correlation coefficients between the FFQ and WDR were acceptable for EI (%) for MPF (r = 0.31) and UPF (r = 0.30). The FFQ differentiated between the highest and lowest quartiles for EI (%) from MPF and UPF foods (p-values for the trends were 0.006 and 0.009 respectively), and for EI (kJ) from UPF foods (p-value for trend 0.003). Bland–Altman plots indicated consistent agreement between repeat administrations of FFQ for MPF and UPF only, while intra-class correlations suggested good reproducibility for EI (kJ and %) for all four NOVA categories (range 0.51–0.76). The EAT5 FFQ has acceptable relative validity for ranking EI (%) from MPF and UPF. It has good reproducibility for measuring EI from all four NOVA categories, in young children.

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 · 10.3390/nu11061290

Cites

5 of 5 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?

  • Studies using best practices have found food frequency questionnaires to be acceptably valid and reliable in classifying foods using Nova.

    “Studies using best practices 203 have found food frequency questionnaires to be acceptably valid and reliable in classifying foods using Nova.[204][205][206][207]”

    From Ultra-processed foods and human health: the main thesis and the evidence (2025) · cites this paper as [204]

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

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. Monteiro, 2016, NOVA. The Star Shines Bright. (Food Classification Public Health), World Nutr., 7, 28
  2. Monteiro, 2017, The UN Decade of Nutrition, the NOVA food classification and the trouble with ultra-processing, Public Health Nutr., 21, 5, 10.1017/S1368980017000234 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Monteiro, 2013, Ultra-processed products are becoming dominant in the global food system, Obes. Rev., 14, 21, 10.1111/obr.12107 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Moubarac, 2014, Processed and Ultra-processed Food Products: Consumption Trends in Canada from 1938 to 2011, Can. J. Dietet. Pract. Res., 75, 15, 10.3148/75.1.2014.15 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Moubarac, 2017, Consumption of ultra-processed foods predicts diet quality in Canada, Appetite, 108, 512, 10.1016/j.appet.2016.11.006 · DOI
  6. Louzada, 2017, The share of ultra-processed foods determines the overall nutritional quality of diets in Brazil, Public Health Nutr., 21, 94, 10.1017/S1368980017001434 · DOI
  7. Julia, 2017, Contribution of ultra-processed foods in the diet of adults from the French NutriNet-Sante study, Public Health Nutr., 21, 27, 10.1017/S1368980017001367 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Louzada, 2017, Energy contribution of NOVA food groups and sociodemographic determinants of ultra-processed food consumption in the Mexican population, Public Health Nutr., 21, 87
  9. Baraldi, 2016, Ultra-processed foods and added sugars in the US diet: Evidence from a nationally representative cross-sectional study, BMJ Open, 6, e009892, 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009892 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Bielemann, 2018, Early feeding practices and consumption of ultraprocessed foods at 6 y of age: Findings from the 2004 Pelotas (Brazil) Birth Cohort Study, Nutrition, 47, 27, 10.1016/j.nut.2017.09.012 · DOI
  11. Rauber, 2015, Consumption of ultra-processed food products and its effects on children’s lipid profiles: A longitudinal study, Nutr. Metab. Cardiovasc. Dis., 25, 116, 10.1016/j.numecd.2014.08.001 · DOI
  12. Karnopp, 2017, Food consumption of children younger than 6 years according to the degree of food processing, J. Pediatr., 93, 70, 10.1016/j.jped.2016.04.007 · DOI
  13. Cade, 2002, Development, validation and utilisation of food-frequency questionnaires—A review, Public Health Nutr., 5, 567, 10.1079/PHN2001318 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Willett, W. (1998). Nutritional Epidemiology, Oxford University Press. [2nd ed.].
  15. Leong, C., Taylor, R.W., Haszard, J.J., Fleming, E.A., Tannock, G.W., Szymlek-Gay, E.A., Cameron, S.L., Yu, R., Carter, H., and Chee, L.K. (2018). Relative Validity and Reproducibility of a Food Frequency Questionnaire to Assess Nutrients and Food Groups of Relevance to the Gut Microbiota in Young Children. Nutrients, 10. · DOI
  16. Watson, 2015, Relative validity and reproducibility of an FFQ to determine nutrient intakes of New Zealand toddlers aged 12–24 months, Public Health Nutr., 18, 3265, 10.1017/S1368980015000841 · DOI
  17. Mills, 2015, Relative Validity and Reproducibility of a Food Frequency Questionnaire for Identifying the Dietary Patterns of Toddlers in New Zealand, J. Acad. Nutr. Diet., 115, 551, 10.1016/j.jand.2014.09.016 · DOI
  18. Marriott, 2009, What do babies eat? Evaluation of a food frequency questionnaire to assess the diets of infants aged 12 months, Public Health Nutr., 12, 967, 10.1017/S1368980008003388 · DOI
  19. Harttig, 2011, The MSM program: Web-based statistics package for estimating usual dietary intake using the Multiple Source Method, Eur. J. Clin. Nutr., 65, S87, 10.1038/ejcn.2011.92 · DOI
  20. Lacy, 2017, The provision of ultra-processed foods and their contribution to sodium availability in Australian long day care centres, Public Health Nutr., 21, 134
  21. Gibney, 2017, Ultra-processed foods in human health: A critical appraisal, Am. J. Clin. Nutr., 106, 717, 10.3945/ajcn.117.160440 · DOI
  22. Jones, 2019, Food processing: Criteria for dietary guidance and public health?, Proc. Nutr. Soc., 78, 4, 10.1017/S0029665118002513 · DOI
  23. Lacy, 2017, A novel processed food classification system applied to Australian food composition databases, J. Hum. Nutr. Diet., 30, 534, 10.1111/jhn.12445 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Fangupo, L. J., Haszard, J. J., Leong, C., Heath, A.-L. M., Fleming, E. A., & Taylor, R. W.
Affiliations
  • Department of Medicine, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, P.O.Box 56, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand
  • Centre for Biostatistics, University of Otago, P.O.Box 56, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand
  • Department of Human Nutrition, University of Otago, P.O.Box 56, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand
ORCID
Venue
Nutrients
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2019-06-07
Volume
11
Issue
6
Pages
1290
ISSN
2072-6643
DOI
10.3390/nu11061290
PMC
PMC6627316
Cited by
31
References
5
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)

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