ArticleJMIR formative research2022
Assessing the Initial Validity of the PortionSize App to Estimate Dietary Intake Among Adults: Pilot and Feasibility App Validation Study.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Application of Augmented Reality Technology as a Dietary Monitoring and Control Measure Among Adults: A Systematic Review.Nutrients · 2025Pooled it
- Integration of the PortionSize Ed App into SNAP-Ed for Improving Diet Quality Among Adolescents in Hawaii: A Randomized Pilot Study.Nutrients · 2025Trial
- Validity of the PortionSize application compared with that of MyFitnessPal for accurately estimating intake: a randomized crossover laboratory-based evaluation.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2024Trial
- Digital and Technology-Enabled Approaches in Dietary Assessment: Addressing Bias, Error, and Feasibility in Population- and Community-Based Research.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2026Review
- Validity of the PortionSize App for Assessing Children's Dietary Intake: Results From a Pilot Study Conducted in Controlled and Free-Living Settings.Pediatric obesity · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Validity of the PortionSize Smartphone Application for Estimating Dietary Intake in Free-Living Conditions: A Pilot Study.Journal of nutrition education and behavior · 2024Article
- Selecting foods from FNDDS when calculating food intake: Does the reference matter?Journal of food composition and analysis : an official publication of the United Nations University, International Network of Food Data Systems · 2024Article
- Validity of an Artificial Intelligence-Based Application to Identify Foods and Estimate Energy Intake Among Adults: A Pilot Study.Current developments in nutrition · 2023Article
- An Overview of Traditional and Novel Tools to Assess Diet.American journal of lifestyle medicineReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAccurately assessing dietary intake can promote improved nutrition. The PortionSize app (Pennington Biomedical Research Center) was designed to quantify and provide real-time feedback on the intake of energy, food groups, saturated fat, and added sugar.
objectiveThis study aimed to assess the preliminary feasibility and validity of estimating food intake via the PortionSize app among adults.
methodsA total of 15 adults (aged 18-65 years) were recruited and trained to quantify the food intake from a simulated meal by using PortionSize. Trained personnel prepared 15 simulated meals and covertly weighed (weigh back) the amount of food provided to participants as well as food waste. Equivalence tests (±25% bounds) were performed to compare PortionSize to the weigh back method.
resultsParticipants were aged a mean of 28 (SD 12) years, and 11 were female. The mean energy intake estimated with PortionSize was 742.9 (SD 328.2) kcal, and that estimated via weigh back was 659.3 (SD 190.7) kcal (energy intake difference: mean 83.5, SD 287.5 kcal). The methods were not equivalent in estimating energy intake (P=.18), and PortionSize overestimated energy intake by 83.5 kcal (12.7%) at the meal level. Estimates of portion sizes (gram weight; P=.01), total sugar (P=.049), fruit servings (P=.01), and dairy servings (P=.047) from PortionSize were equivalent to those estimated via weigh back. PortionSize was not equivalent to weigh back with regard to estimates for carbohydrate (P=.10), fat (P=.32), vegetable (P=.37), grain (P=.31), and protein servings (P=.87).
conclusionsDue to power limitations, the equivalence tests had large equivalence bounds. Though preliminary, the results of this small pilot study warrant the further adaptation, development, and validation of PortionSize as a means to estimate energy intake and provide users with real-time and actionable dietary feedback.
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.