ArticleNutrients2022
Absolute and Relative Agreement between the Current and Modified Brazilian Cardioprotective Nutritional Program Dietary Index (BALANCE DI) and the American Heart Association Healthy Diet Score (AHA-DS) in Post Myocardial Infarction Patients.
Article in Nutrients, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The American Heart Association Diet Score (AHA-DS) defines the cardiovascular health, and the Brazilian Cardioprotective Nutritional Program Dietary Index (BALANCE DI) was designed to evaluate diet quality in secondary cardiovascular prevention settings. Our aim was to assess the absolute and relative agreement between both tools in Brazilian adults after a myocardial infarction (MI). In this cross-sectional study, 473 individuals were included and had their diet assessed by a 24 h food recall and a semi-quantitative Food Frequency Questionnaire. The weighted Kappa between BALANCE DI and primary AHA-DS was 0.66 (95% CI: 0.08-0.21), and between BALANCE DI and total AHA-DS was 0.70 (95% CI: 0.20-0.32). To improve the agreement between the tools, modifications were made to the BALANCE DI scoring system. The weighted Kappa between New BALANCE DI and primary AHA-DS was 0.77 (95% CI: 0.36-0.48), and between BALANCE DI and total AHA-DS was 0.76 (95% CI: 0.34-0.46). The mean bias observed between the New BALANCE DI as compared to the primary and total AHA-DS was -16% (-51 to 19) and -8% (-41 to 24), respectively. Our results suggest that the New BALANCE DI may be a useful tool to evaluate diet quality in post MI patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.