ReviewFood science & nutrition2026
Relative Validity of Food Frequency Questionnaires in Adult Populations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Food science & nutrition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate dietary assessment is essential in nutritional research and epidemiology. Food Frequency Questionnaires (FFQs) are widely used to estimate habitual intake; however, their performance may vary according to questionnaire design, administration procedures, and the dietary components being assessed. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the relative validity of FFQs designed to assess overall dietary intake in adults and explored methodological characteristics associated with their performance. A meta-analysis was conducted on studies validating FFQs against reference methods, including 24-h recalls and food records. A comprehensive search of the PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases was conducted for publications from January 2000 to February 1, 2026. Pooled estimates were calculated for correlation coefficients and mean differences for energy and nutrients between FFQs and reference methods. The literature search identified 43 articles that included 8467 participants. Subgroup analyses according to the sample size, administration methods, FFQ items, quality of the studies, and regions were also performed. Overall, FFQs showed moderate-to-good relative validity for most nutrients. Performance was relatively consistent for energy and macronutrients, particularly carbohydrates, whereas greater variability was observed for micronutrients, although some, including magnesium and riboflavin, showed high correlations. Systematic overestimation of certain nutrient intakes was observed, particularly when FFQs were compared with 24HRs. Interviewer-administered FFQs and questionnaires with a greater number of items tended to yield slightly higher correlations, while studies of higher methodological quality also tended to report stronger correlations. These findings support the use of FFQs primarily for ranking individuals according to habitual dietary intake and suggest that administration mode, questionnaire comprehensiveness, and methodological quality should be carefully considered in future FFQ development and validation. Greater caution may be warranted when overall-diet FFQs are used to estimate specific micronutrient intakes.
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.