Evidence mapPaperPMID 38354039Full record

Trial reportJournal of medical Internet research2024

Dietary Intake Assessment Using a Novel, Generic Meal-Based Recall and a 24-Hour Recall: Comparison Study.

Cathal O'Hara, Eileen R Gibney

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Cathal O'Hara *University College Dublin Institute of Food and Health, Science Centre South, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0001-7703-7897
Eileen R Gibney *University College Dublin Institute of Food and Health, Science Centre South, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0001-9465-052X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDietary intake assessment is an integral part of addressing suboptimal dietary intakes. Existing food-based methods are time-consuming and burdensome for users to report the individual foods consumed at each meal. However, ease of use is the most important feature for individuals choosing a nutrition or diet app. Intakes of whole meals can be reported in a manner that is less burdensome than reporting individual foods. No study has developed a method of dietary intake assessment where individuals report their dietary intakes as whole meals rather than individual foods.

objectiveThis study aims to develop a novel, meal-based method of dietary intake assessment and test its ability to estimate nutrient intakes compared with that of a web-based, 24-hour recall (24HR).

methodsParticipants completed a web-based, generic meal-based recall. This involved, for each meal type (breakfast, light meal, main meal, snack, and beverage), choosing from a selection of meal images those that most represented their intakes during the previous day. Meal images were based on generic meals from a previous study that were representative of the actual meal intakes in Ireland. Participants also completed a web-based 24HR. Both methods were completed on the same day, 3 hours apart. In a crossover design, participants were randomized in terms of which method they completed first. Then, 2 weeks after the first dietary assessments, participants repeated the process in the reverse order. Estimates of mean daily nutrient intakes and the categorization of individuals according to nutrient-based guidelines (eg, low, adequate, and high) were compared between the 2 methods. P values of less than .05 were considered statistically significant.

resultsIn total, 161 participants completed the study. For the 23 nutrient variables compared, the median percentage difference between the 2 methods was 7.6% (IQR 2.6%-13.2%), with P values ranging from <.001 to .97, and out of 23 variables, effect sizes for the differences were small for 19 (83%) variables, moderate for 2 (9%) variables, and large for 2 (9%) variables. Correlation coefficients were statistically significant (P<.05) for 18 (78%) of the 23 variables. Statistically significant correlations ranged from 0.16 to 0.45, with median correlation of 0.32 (IQR 0.25-0.40). When participants were classified according to nutrient-based guidelines, the proportion of individuals who were classified into the same category ranged from 52.8% (85/161) to 84.5% (136/161).

conclusionsA generic meal-based method of dietary intake assessment provides estimates of nutrient intake comparable with those provided by a web-based 24HR but with varying levels of agreement among nutrients. Further studies are required to refine and improve the generic recall across a range of nutrients. Future studies will consider user experience including the potential feasibility of incorporating image recognition of whole meals into the generic recall.

Indexed as

MealsMental RecallCross-Over StudiesEatingHumansNutritional StatusNutrition Assessment24-hour recalldietary intake assessmenteating behaviorseating occasionsmeal patternsnutrition assessmentrelative validity

Identifiers

PMID38354039
PMCPMC10902769

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.