Dataset Information

Comparison of methods to account for implausible reporting of energy intake in epidemiologic studies.

ABSTRACT: In a recent article in the American Journal of Epidemiology by Mendez et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2011;173(4):448-458), the use of alternative approaches to the exclusion of implausible energy intakes led to significantly different cross-sectional associations between diet and body mass index (BMI), whereas the use of a simpler recommended criteria (<500 and >3,500 kcal/day) yielded no meaningful change. However, these findings might have been due to exclusions made based on weight, a primary determinant of BMI. Using data from 52,110 women in the Nurses' Health Study (1990), we reproduced the cross-sectional findings of Mendez et al. and compared the results from the recommended method with those from 2 weight-dependent alternative methods (the Goldberg method and predicted total energy expenditure method). The same 3 exclusion criteria were then used to examine dietary variables prospectively in relation to change in BMI, which is not a direct function of attained weight. We found similar associations using the 3 methods. In a separate cross-sectional analysis using biomarkers of dietary factors, we found similar correlations for intakes of fatty acids (n = 439) and carotenoids and retinol (n = 1,293) using the 3 methods for exclusions. These results do not support the general conclusion that use of exclusion criteria based on the alternative methods might confer an advantage over the recommended exclusion method.

SUBMITTER: Rhee JJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4325679 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of methods to account for implausible reporting of energy intake in epidemiologic studies.

Rhee Jinnie J JJ Sampson Laura L Cho Eunyoung E Hughes Michael D MD Hu Frank B FB Willett Walter C WC

American journal of epidemiology 20150205 4

In a recent article in the American Journal of Epidemiology by Mendez et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2011;173(4):448-458), the use of alternative approaches to the exclusion of implausible energy intakes led to significantly different cross-sectional associations between diet and body mass index (BMI), whereas the use of a simpler recommended criteria (<500 and >3,500 kcal/day) yielded no meaningful change. However, these findings might have been due to exclusions made based on weight, a primary determ ...[more]

PMID: 25656533

Similar Datasets

Project description:Epidemiologic studies use various biosample collection methods to study associations between human oral microbiota and health outcomes. However, the agreement between the different methods is unclear. We compared a commercially available OMNIgene ORAL kit to three alternative collection methods: Saccomanno's fixative, Scope mouthwash, and nonethanol mouthwash. Oral samples were collected from 40 individuals over 4 visits. Two samples were collected from each subject per visit: one with OMNIgene and one with an alternative method. DNA was extracted using the DSP DNA Virus Pathogen kit, and the V4 region of the 16S rRNA gene was PCR amplified and sequenced using MiSeq. Oral collection methods were compared based on alpha and beta diversity metrics and phylum- and genus-level relative abundances. All alpha diversity metrics were significantly lower for Saccomanno's fixative than for OMNIgene (P < 0.001), whereas the two mouthwashes were more similar to OMNIgene. Principal-coordinate analysis (PCoA) using the Bray-Curtis and weighted UniFrac beta diversity matrices showed large differences in the microbial compositions of samples collected with Saccomanno's compared to those with OMNIgene and the mouthwashes. Clustering by collection method was not observed in unweighted UniFrac PCoA plots, suggesting differences in relative abundances but not specific taxa detected by the collection methods. Relative abundances of most taxa were significantly different between OMNIgene and the other methods at each taxonomic level, with Saccomanno's showing the least agreement with OMNIgene. There were clear differences in oral microbial communities between the four oral collection methods, particularly for Saccomanno's fixative.IMPORTANCE We compared four different oral collection methods for studying the human oral microbiome: an OMNIgene ORAL kit, Scope mouthwash, nonethanol mouthwash, and Saccomanno's fixative. Our study shows that the type of the collection method can have a large impact on the results of an oral microbiome analysis. We recommend that one consistent oral collection method should be used for all oral microbiome comparisons. While Scope and nonethanol mouthwashes are less expensive and provide results similar to those with OMNIgene, Saccomanno's fixative may be unfavorable due to the microbial differences detected in this study. Our results will help guide the design of future oral microbiome studies.

Project description:Approaches based on linear mixed models (LMMs) have recently gained popularity for modelling population substructure and relatedness in genome-wide association studies. In the last few years, a bewildering variety of different LMM methods/software packages have been developed, but it is not always clear how (or indeed whether) any newly-proposed method differs from previously-proposed implementations. Here we compare the performance of several LMM approaches (and software implementations, including EMMAX, GenABEL, FaST-LMM, Mendel, GEMMA and MMM) via their application to a genome-wide association study of visceral leishmaniasis in 348 Brazilian families comprising 3626 individuals (1972 genotyped). The implementations differ in precise details of methodology implemented and through various user-chosen options such as the method and number of SNPs used to estimate the kinship (relatedness) matrix. We investigate sensitivity to these choices and the success (or otherwise) of the approaches in controlling the overall genome-wide error-rate for both real and simulated phenotypes. We compare the LMM results to those obtained using traditional family-based association tests (based on transmission of alleles within pedigrees) and to alternative approaches implemented in the software packages MQLS, ROADTRIPS and MASTOR. We find strong concordance between the results from different LMM approaches, and all are successful in controlling the genome-wide error rate (except for some approaches when applied naively to longitudinal data with many repeated measures). We also find high correlation between LMMs and alternative approaches (apart from transmission-based approaches when applied to SNPs with small or non-existent effects). We conclude that LMM approaches perform well in comparison to competing approaches. Given their strong concordance, in most applications, the choice of precise LMM implementation cannot be based on power/type I error considerations but must instead be based on considerations such as speed and ease-of-use.

Project description:BackgroundDevelopment of prognostic models enables identification of variables that are influential in predicting patient outcome and the use of these multiple risk factors in a systematic, reproducible way according to evidence based methods. The reliability of models depends on informed use of statistical methods, in combination with prior knowledge of disease. We reviewed published articles to assess reporting and methods used to develop new prognostic models in cancer.MethodsWe developed a systematic search string and identified articles from PubMed. Forty-seven articles were included that satisfied the following inclusion criteria: published in 2005; aiming to predict patient outcome; presenting new prognostic models in cancer with outcome time to an event and including a combination of at least two separate variables; and analysing data using multivariable analysis suitable for time to event data.ResultsIn 47 studies, prospective cohort or randomised controlled trial data were used for model development in only 33% (15) of studies. In 30% (14) of the studies insufficient data were available, having fewer than 10 events per variable (EPV) used in model development. EPV could not be calculated in a further 40% (19) of the studies. The coding of candidate variables was only reported in 68% (32) of the studies. Although use of continuous variables was reported in all studies, only one article reported using recommended methods of retaining all these variables as continuous without categorisation. Statistical methods for selection of variables in the multivariate modelling were often flawed. A method that is not recommended, namely, using statistical significance in univariate analysis as a pre-screening test to select variables for inclusion in the multivariate model, was applied in 48% (21) of the studies.ConclusionsWe found that published prognostic models are often characterised by both use of inappropriate methods for development of multivariable models and poor reporting. In addition, models are limited by the lack of studies based on prospective data of sufficient sample size to avoid overfitting. The use of poor methods compromises the reliability of prognostic models developed to provide objective probability estimates to complement clinical intuition of the physician and guidelines.

Project description:BackgroundMisreporting of energy intake is common and can contribute to biased estimates of the relationship between diet and disease. Energy intake misreporting is poorly understood in pregnancy and there is limited research assessing characteristics of women who misreport energy intake or changes in misreporting of energy intake across pregnancy.MethodsAn observational study in n?=?945 overweight or obese pregnant women receiving standard antenatal care who participated in the LIMIT randomised trial. Diet, physical activity, psychological factors, body image satisfaction and dieting behaviour were assessed at trial entry (10-20 weeks gestation) and 36 weeks gestation. Energy misreporting status was assessed through the ratio of daily energy intake over basal metabolic rate. Logistic regression analyses were conducted with the dependent variable of under reporting of energy intake at study entry or 36 weeks in separate analysis.ResultsAt study entry and 36 weeks, women were classified as under reporters (38 vs 49.4%), adequate reporters (59.7 vs 49.8%) or over reporters of energy intake (2.3 vs 0.8%) respectively. The prevalence of under reporting energy intake at 36 weeks was higher than at study entry (early pregnancy). Body mass index (BMI) at study entry and 36 weeks and socioeconomic status, dieting behaviour and risk of depression at 36 weeks were independent predictors of under reporting of energy intake.ConclusionsUnder reporting of energy intake was present in over a third of overweight and obese pregnant women and was higher in late compared to early pregnancy. Characteristics such as BMI, socioeconomic status, past dieting behaviour and risk of depression may aid in identifying women who either require support in accurate recording of food intake or attention for improving diet quality. Results were unable to distinguish whether under reporting reflects misreporting or a true restriction of dietary intake.Trial registrationAustralian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12607000161426 , registered 9/3/2007.

Dataset Information

Comparison of methods to account for implausible reporting of energy intake in epidemiologic studies.

Publications

Comparison of methods to account for implausible reporting of energy intake in epidemiologic studies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets