Dataset Information

Investigating sex differences in the accuracy of dietary assessment methods to measure energy intake in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

To inform the interpretation of dietary data in the context of sex differences in diet-disease relations, it is important to understand whether there are any sex differences in accuracy of dietary reporting.

Objective

To quantify sex differences in self-reported total energy intake (TEI) compared with a reference measure of total energy expenditure (TEE).

Methods

Six electronic databases were systematically searched for published original research articles between 1980 and April 2020. Studies were included if they were conducted in adult populations with measures for both females and males of self-reported TEI and TEE from doubly labeled water (DLW). Studies were screened and quality assessed independently by 2 authors. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to pool the mean differences between TEI and TEE for, and between, females and males, by method of dietary assessment.

Results

From 1313 identified studies, 31 met the inclusion criteria. The studies collectively included information on 4518 individuals (54% females). Dietary assessment methods included 24-h recalls (n = 12, 2 with supplemental photos of food items consumed), estimated food records (EFRs; n = 11), FFQs (n = 10), weighed food records (WFRs, n = 5), and diet histories (n = 2). Meta-analyses identified underestimation of TEI by females and males, ranging from -1318 kJ/d (95% CI: -1967, -669) for FFQ to -2650 kJ/d (95% CI: -3492, -1807) for 24-h recalls for females, and from -1764 kJ/d (95% CI: -2285, -1242) for FFQ to -3438 kJ/d (95% CI: -5382, -1494) for WFR for males. There was no difference in the level of underestimation by sex, except when using EFR, for which males underestimated energy intake more than females (by 590 kJ/d, 95% CI: 35, 1,146).

Conclusion

Substantial underestimation of TEI across a range of dietary assessment methods was identified, similar by sex. These underestimations should be considered when assessing TEI and interpreting diet-disease relations.

SUBMITTER: McKenzie BL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8106762 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Diet is an important modifiable risk factor for many chronic diseases. Measurement of dietary intake usually relies on self-report, subject to multiple biases. There is a need to understand gender differences in the self-report of dietary intake and the implications of any differences in targeting nutrition interventions. Literature in this area is limited and it is currently unknown whether self-report dietary assessment methods are equally accurate for women and men. The aim of this systematic review is to determine whether there are differences by gender in reporting energy intake compared with a reference measure of total energy expenditure. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:A comprehensive search of published original research studies will be performed in MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane library. Original research studies will be included if they were conducted in free-living/unhospitalised adults and included a measure for both women and men of (a) self-reported energy intake and (b) total energy expenditure by doubly labelled water. One author will conduct the electronic database searches, two authors will independently screen studies, conduct a quality appraisal of the included studies using standardised tools and extract data. If further information is needed, then study authors will be contacted. If appropriate, a random-effects meta-analysis will be conducted, with inverse probability weighting, to quantify differences in the mean difference in agreement between reported energy intake and measured energy expenditure between women and men, by self-report assessment method. Subgroup analyses will be conducted by participant factors, geographical factors and study quality. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:All data used will be from published primary research studies or deidentified results provided at the discretion of any study authors that we contact. We will submit our findings to a peer-reviewed scientific journal and will disseminate results through presentations at international scientific conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42019131715.

Project description:BackgroundTechnology-assisted 24-h dietary recalls (24HRs) have been widely adopted in population nutrition surveillance. Evaluations of 24HRs inform improvements, but direct comparisons of 24HR methods for accuracy in reference to a measure of true intake are rarely undertaken in a single study population.ObjectivesTo compare the accuracy of energy and nutrient intake estimation of 4 technology-assisted dietary assessment methods relative to true intake across breakfast, lunch, and dinner.MethodsIn a controlled feeding study with a crossover design, 152 participants [55% women; mean age 32 y, standard deviation (SD) 11; mean body mass index 26 kg/m2, SD 5] were randomized to 1 of 3 separate feeding days to consume breakfast, lunch, and dinner, with unobtrusive weighing of foods and beverages consumed. Participants undertook a 24HR the following day [Automated Self-Administered Dietary Assessment Tool-Australia (ASA24); Intake24-Australia; mobile Food Record-Trained Analyst (mFR-TA); or Image-Assisted Interviewer-Administered 24-hour recall (IA-24HR)]. When assigned to IA-24HR, participants referred to images captured of their meals using the mobile Food Record (mFR) app. True and estimated energy and nutrient intakes were compared, and differences among methods were assessed using linear mixed models.ResultsThe mean difference between true and estimated energy intake as a percentage of true intake was 5.4% (95% CI: 0.6, 10.2%) using ASA24, 1.7% (95% CI: -2.9, 6.3%) using Intake24, 1.3% (95% CI: -1.1, 3.8%) using mFR-TA, and 15.0% (95% CI: 11.6, 18.3%) using IA-24HR. The variances of estimated and true energy intakes were statistically significantly different for all methods (P < 0.01) except Intake24 (P = 0.1). Differential accuracy in nutrient estimation was present among the methods.ConclusionsUnder controlled conditions, Intake24, ASA24, and mFR-TA estimated average energy and nutrient intakes with reasonable validity, but intake distributions were estimated accurately by Intake24 only (energy and protein). This study may inform considerations regarding instruments of choice in future population surveillance. This trial was registered at Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry as ACTRN12621000209897.

Project description:Mobile technology introduces opportunity for new methods of dietary assessment. The purpose of this study was to compare the reporting accuracy of a mobile food log application and 24 h recall method to a controlled meal among a convenience sample of adults (18 years of age or older). Participants were recruited from a community/university convenience sample. Participants consumed a pre-portioned control meal, completed mobile food log entry (mfood log), and participated in a dietary recall administered by a registered dietitian (24R). Height, weight, and application use survey data were collected. Sign test, Pearson's correlation, and descriptive analyses were conducted to examine differences in total and macronutrient energy intake and describe survey responses. Bland Altman plots were examined for agreement between energy intake from control and 24R and mfood log. The 14 included in the analyses were 78.6% female, 85.7% overweight/obese, and 64.3% African American. Mean total energy, protein, and fat intakes reported via the mfood log were significantly (p < 0.05) lower compared to the control, by 268.31kcals, 20.37 g, and 19.51 g, respectively. Only 24R mean fat intake was significantly (p < 0.01) lower than the control, by 6.43 g. Significant associations (r = 0.57⁻0.60, p < 0.05) were observed between control and mfood log mean energy, carbohydrate, and protein intakes, as well as between control and 24R mean energy (r = 0.64, p = 0.01) and carbohydrate (r = 0.81, p < 0.001) intakes. Bland Altman plots showed wide limits of agreement, which were not statistically significant but may have practical limitations for individual dietary assessment. Responses indicated the ease of and likelihood of daily mfood log use. This study demonstrates that the Bridge2U mfood log is valid for the assessment of group level data, but data may vary too widely for individual assessment. Further investigation is warranted for nutrition intervention research.