OBJECTIVES: To compare the estimated food diary record (ED) method against weighed intake record method (WI) for assessing dietary intake in infants and children aged 6-24 months; additionally, to compare WI with metabolisable energy intake (ME) measured by doubly labelled water (DLW) in infants aged 6 12 months. DESIGN: Cross-over study of 5 day WI vs 5 day ED. SUBJECTS:Seventy-two children aged 6-24 months. METHODS: Subjects were randomly assigned to one method during week 1 crossing over to the alternative method in week 2. Data were coded and translated into daily nutrient intakes using COMP-EAT version 5 nutritional analysis software. The analysis compared energy, protein, fat and carbohydrate. Twenty-one infants were dosed with DLW for measurement of total energy expenditure (TEE) and ME. RESULTS:Mean energy intake calculated from WI and ED was 3,782 and 3,920 kJ/day, respectively. There was no significant difference between these values. Using WI as a reference, ED showed a mean bias of 138 kJ/day, equivalent to 3.6% of mean energy intake. Limits of agreement (+/- 2 s.d. of the bias) were wide at +/- 1,385 kJ/day. There were no significant differences between methods for any of the nutrient sub-classes. Using DLW as a reference, WI showed a mean bias of 243 kJ/day, equivalent to 7.3% of mean energy intake, limits of agreement were wide at +/- 1686 kJ/day. CONCLUSION: There is no evidence from the present analysis that ED is less accurate than WI for assessing energy and nutrient sub-class intakes in groups of this age but this good agreement between methods in groups does not extend to individuals.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To compare the estimated food diary record (ED) method against weighed intake record method (WI) for assessing dietary intake in infants and children aged 6-24 months; additionally, to compare WI with metabolisable energy intake (ME) measured by doubly labelled water (DLW) in infants aged 6 12 months. DESIGN: Cross-over study of 5 day WI vs 5 day ED. SUBJECTS: Seventy-two children aged 6-24 months. METHODS: Subjects were randomly assigned to one method during week 1 crossing over to the alternative method in week 2. Data were coded and translated into daily nutrient intakes using COMP-EAT version 5 nutritional analysis software. The analysis compared energy, protein, fat and carbohydrate. Twenty-one infants were dosed with DLW for measurement of total energy expenditure (TEE) and ME. RESULTS: Mean energy intake calculated from WI and ED was 3,782 and 3,920 kJ/day, respectively. There was no significant difference between these values. Using WI as a reference, ED showed a mean bias of 138 kJ/day, equivalent to 3.6% of mean energy intake. Limits of agreement (+/- 2 s.d. of the bias) were wide at +/- 1,385 kJ/day. There were no significant differences between methods for any of the nutrient sub-classes. Using DLW as a reference, WI showed a mean bias of 243 kJ/day, equivalent to 7.3% of mean energy intake, limits of agreement were wide at +/- 1686 kJ/day. CONCLUSION: There is no evidence from the present analysis that ED is less accurate than WI for assessing energy and nutrient sub-class intakes in groups of this age but this good agreement between methods in groups does not extend to individuals.
Authors: Cheryl-Ann Bennett; Andrea M de Silva-Sanigorski; Melanie Nichols; Andrew C Bell; Boyd A Swinburn Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2009-10-26 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Abby F Duhé; L Anne Gilmore; Jeffrey H Burton; Corby K Martin; Leanne M Redman Journal: J Acad Nutr Diet Date: 2016-03-03 Impact factor: 4.910
Authors: Emily Fitt; Darren Cole; Nida Ziauddeen; David Pell; Elizabeth Stickley; Anna Harvey; Alison M Stephen Journal: Public Health Nutr Date: 2014-03-27 Impact factor: 4.022
Authors: Inge Huybrechts; Guy De Backer; Dirk De Bacquer; Lea Maes; Stefaan De Henauw Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2009-01-22 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Laura Pimpin; Gina L Ambrosini; Clare H Llewellyn; Laura Johnson; Cornelia H M van Jaarsveld; Susan A Jebb; Jane Wardle Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2013-09-18 Impact factor: 7.045