OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to validate the EAR cut-point method for assessing the prevalence of nutrient inadequacy at the population level. DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: Different methods for estimating the prevalence of inadequate intake were compared: the cut-off point method, with cut-off points at the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA), 0.66 RDA, 0.50 RDA and the Estimated Average Requirement (EAR); the probability approach; and a Monte Carlo simulation. In total, 591 men and 674 women, aged 20-55 years, were included in the analyses. RESULTS: The prevalence of inadequate intake as estimated by the EAR cut-point method was similar to the prevalence of inadequacy estimated by both probabilistic methods. The cut-point method with RDA, 0.66 RDA and 0.50 RDA as cut-off limits induced an over- or an underestimation of the real prevalence of inadequacy. CONCLUSIONS: Probabilistic methods consider both the intake variability and the requirement variability, and, as a result, their estimation should be closer to the real prevalence of inadequacy. The use of the EAR cut-point method yields a good estimation of the prevalence of inadequate intake, comparable to the probability approach, and limits over- and underestimation of the prevalence induced by other cut-off points.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to validate the EAR cut-point method for assessing the prevalence of nutrient inadequacy at the population level. DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: Different methods for estimating the prevalence of inadequate intake were compared: the cut-off point method, with cut-off points at the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA), 0.66 RDA, 0.50 RDA and the Estimated Average Requirement (EAR); the probability approach; and a Monte Carlo simulation. In total, 591 men and 674 women, aged 20-55 years, were included in the analyses. RESULTS: The prevalence of inadequate intake as estimated by the EAR cut-point method was similar to the prevalence of inadequacy estimated by both probabilistic methods. The cut-point method with RDA, 0.66 RDA and 0.50 RDA as cut-off limits induced an over- or an underestimation of the real prevalence of inadequacy. CONCLUSIONS: Probabilistic methods consider both the intake variability and the requirement variability, and, as a result, their estimation should be closer to the real prevalence of inadequacy. The use of the EAR cut-point method yields a good estimation of the prevalence of inadequate intake, comparable to the probability approach, and limits over- and underestimation of the prevalence induced by other cut-off points.
Authors: S E Power; I B Jeffery; R P Ross; C Stanton; P W O'Toole; E M O'Connor; G F Fitzgerald Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2014 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Michael Tieland; Karin J Borgonjen-Van den Berg; Luc J C van Loon; Lisette C P G M de Groot Journal: Eur J Nutr Date: 2011-05-12 Impact factor: 5.614
Authors: Niamh Rice; Helena Gibbons; Breige A McNulty; Janette Walton; Albert Flynn; Michael J Gibney; Anne P Nugent Journal: Food Nutr Res Date: 2015-06-08 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Annet J C Roodenburg; Adriana J van Ballegooijen; Mariska Dötsch-Klerk; Hilko van der Voet; Jacob C Seidell Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-08-28 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Hilko van der Voet; Waldo J de Boer; Olga W Souverein; Esmée L Doets; Pieter van 't Veer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-03-28 Impact factor: 3.240