Dataset Information

A systematic review of reviews identifying UK validated dietary assessment tools for inclusion on an interactive guided website for researchers: www.nutritools.org.

ABSTRACT: Background: Health researchers may struggle to choose suitable validated dietary assessment tools (DATs) for their target population. The aim of this review was to identify and collate information on validated UK DATs and validation studies for inclusion on a website to support researchers to choose appropriate DATs.Design: A systematic review of reviews of DATs was undertaken. DATs validated in UK populations were extracted from the studies identified. A searchable website was designed to display these data. Additionally, mean differences and limits of agreement between test and comparison methods were summarized by a method, weighting by sample size.Results: Over 900 validation results covering 5 life stages, 18 nutrients, 6 dietary assessment methods, and 9 validation method types were extracted from 63 validated DATs which were identified from 68 reviews. These were incorporated into www.nutritools.org. Limits of agreement were determined for about half of validations. Thirty four DATs were FFQs. Only 17 DATs were validated against biomarkers, and only 19 DATs were validated in infant/children/adolescents.Conclusions: The interactive www.nutritools.org website holds extensive validation data identified from this review and can be used to guide researchers to critically compare and choose a suitable DAT for their research question, leading to improvement of nutritional epidemiology research.

SUBMITTER: Hooson Jzh J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7114915 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe use of administrative data in health and social science research continues to expand, with increased availability of data and interest from funders. Researchers, however, continue to experience delays in access, storage and sharing of administrative data. Training opportunities are limited and typically specific to individual data providers or focussed on the analytical aspects of working with administrative data. The CENTRIC study was funded by the Information Commissioners Office, with the aim of developing a broader training curriculum for researchers working with administrative data in the UK.MethodsA mixed-methods design informed curriculum content, including surveys with researchers, focus group discussions with data providers and workshops with members of the public. Researchers were identified from relevant administrative data networks and invited to participate in an online survey identifying training needs. Data providers were approached with a request to input to a face-to-face or online meeting with two members of the research team about their experiences of working with researchers. Data were analysed within the broad framework of the interview schedule, free text responses in the survey were analysed thematically.Results107 researchers responded to the online survey and four data providers participated in the focus groups. We identified five main themes, relating to research training needs for UK researchers working with administrative data: communication; timelines; changes & amendments; future-proofing applications; and, the availability of training and support. Data providers either provided additional evidence on these learning needs or ways to address identified challenges. Six modules were developed addressing these training needs. Quotes from the survey and focus groups are used anonymously in the online training modules.ConclusionThe CENTRIC online training curriculum was launched in September 2020 and is available, free of charge for UK researchers. CENTRIC specifically addresses commonly identified training needs of researchers working with administrative data.

Project description:BackgroundMeasuring dietary intake in children and adolescents can be challenging due to misreporting, difficulties in establishing portion size and reliance on recording dietary data via proxy reporters. The aim of this review was to present results from a recent systematic review of reviews reporting and comparing validated dietary assessment tools used in younger populations in the UK.MethodsValidation data for dietary assessment tools used in younger populations (≤18 years) were extracted and summarised using results from a systematic review of reviews of validated dietary assessment tools. Mean differences and Bland-Altman limits of agreement (LOA) between the test and reference tool were extracted or calculated and compared for energy, macronutrients and micronutrients.ResultsSeventeen studies which reported validation of 14 dietary assessment tools (DATs) were identified with relevant nutrition information. The most commonly validated nutrients were energy, carbohydrate, protein, fat, calcium, iron, folate and vitamin C. There were no validated DATs reporting assessment of zinc, iodine or selenium intake. The most frequently used reference method was the weighed food diary, followed by doubly labelled water and 24 h recall. Summary plots were created to facilitate comparison between tools. On average, the test tools reported higher mean intakes than the reference methods with some studies consistently reporting wide LOA. Out of the 14 DATs, absolute values for LOA and mean difference were obtained for 11 DATs for EI. From the 24 validation results assessing EI, 16 (67%) reported higher mean intakes than the reference. Of the seven (29%) validation studies using doubly labelled water (DLW) as the reference, results for the test DATs were not substantially better or worse than those using other reference measures. Further information on the studies from this review is available on the www.nutritools.org website.ConclusionsValidated dietary assessment tools for use with children and adolescents in the UK have been identified and compared. Whilst tools are generally validated for macronutrient intakes, micronutrients are poorly evaluated. Validation studies that include estimates of zinc, selenium, dietary fibre, sugars and sodium are needed.

Project description:BackgroundTh EQUATOR Network improves the quality and transparency in health research, primarily by promoting awareness and use of reporting guidelines. In 2018, the UK EQUATOR Centre launched GoodReports.org , a website that helps authors find and use reporting guidelines. This paper describes the tool's development so far. We describe user experience and behaviour of using GoodReports.org both inside and outside a journal manuscript submission process. We intend to use our findings to inform future development and testing of the tool.MethodsWe conducted a survey to collect data on user experience of the GoodReports website. We cross-checked a random sample of 100 manuscripts submitted to a partner journal to describe the level of agreement between the tool's checklist recommendation and what we would have recommended. We compared the proportion of authors submitting a completed reporting checklist alongside their manuscripts between groups exposed or not exposed to the GoodReports tool. We also conducted a study comparing completeness of reporting of manuscript text before an author received a reporting guideline recommendation from GoodReports.org with the completeness of the text subsequently submitted to a partner journal.ResultsSeventy percent (423/599) of survey respondents rated GoodReports 8 or more out of 10 for usefulness, and 74% (198/267) said they had made changes to their manuscript after using the website. We agreed with the GoodReports reporting guideline recommendation in 84% (72/86) of cases. Of authors who completed the guideline finder questionnaire, 14% (10/69) failed to submit a completed checklist compared to 30% (41/136) who did not use the tool. Of the 69 authors who received a GoodReports reporting guideline recommendation, 20 manuscript pairs could be reviewed before and after use of GoodReports. Five included more information in their methods section after exposure to GoodReports. On average, authors reported 57% of necessary reporting items before completing a checklist on GoodReports.org and 60% after.ConclusionThe data suggest that reporting guidance is needed early in the writing process, not at submission stage. We are developing GoodReports by adding more reporting guidelines and by creating editable article templates. We will test whether GoodReports users write more complete study reports in a randomised trial targeting researchers starting to write health research articles.

Dataset Information

A systematic review of reviews identifying UK validated dietary assessment tools for inclusion on an interactive guided website for researchers: www.nutritools.org.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets