ReviewEuropean journal of clinical nutrition2026
The (ab)use of food frequency questionnaire data in substitution modelling in nutritional epidemiology: a critique.
Review in European journal of clinical nutrition, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesFood Frequency Questionnaires (FFQs) are widely used in nutritional epidemiology, particularly in substitution modelling to estimate health effects of dietary changes. This review examines validation practices in substitution modelling studies using FFQ-derived data published between 2018 and 2024. SUBJECTS/
methodsA total of 100 studies from 21 countries were included. We assessed the presence and quality of validation data for FFQ variables used in substitution models, focusing on reported validation metrics and correspondence with reference methods.
resultsFifty-three percent of studies used unvalidated FFQ-derived variables in modelling. Among those providing validation data, correlation coefficients with reference methods ranged from 0.12 to 0.77 (median, Q1-Q3: 0.43, 0.30 to 0.50). Minimal or no documentation was found in 62% of studies. In some cases, deviations from reference values exceeded 450%. Studies using unvalidated inputs were frequently published in high-impact journals.
conclusionsThe widespread use of unvalidated FFQ variables and the broad variability in validation quality raise concerns about the reliability of substitution modelling outcomes. Given the role of these studies in informing dietary guidelines, consistent validation protocols and improved reporting standards are urgently needed.
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.