OBJECTIVE: To develop a validated, focused Cruciferous Vegetable Food Frequency Questionnaire (FFQ) as an assessment tool for specific quantification of dietary cruciferous vegetable exposure. DESIGN/ METHODS: Participants (n=107; 18 to 76 years old) completed a standard FFQ and the Cruciferous Vegetable FFQ twice over a 2-week period. Repeat dietary recalls were collected on 3 days over the same 2-week period. Urinary dithiocarbamate was determined as a biomarker of cruciferous vegetable intake. STATISTICAL ANALYSES: Descriptive statistics of intake; paired t tests and sign tests for comparison of intake estimates between instruments; Spearman correlations to assess reliability and associations between diet instruments and urinary dithiocarbamate. RESULTS: Cruciferous vegetable intake was significantly correlated between the two FFQs (r(s)=0.58), although the Cruciferous Vegetable FFQ estimated intake 35 g higher than the standard FFQ. The Cruciferous Vegetable FFQ was reliable, with a repeated measures correlation of 0.69 (P</=0.01). Urinary dithiocarbamate excretion correlated with cruciferous vegetable intake from the Cruciferous Vegetable FFQ (r(s)=0.26, P<0.01), and from the standard FFQ (r(s)=0.19, P=0.06). CONCLUSIONS: The Cruciferous Vegetable FFQ provided a reproducible, valid estimate of cruciferous vegetable exposure and improved the relationship between crucifer consumption and urinary dithiocarbamate, a biomarker of cruciferous vegetable exposure. The nearly twofold difference in exposure estimates between the Cruciferous Vegetable FFQ and the standard FFQ could change the statistical significance of risk estimates in the context of epidemiological research. This questionnaire is an appropriate research tool to evaluate cruciferous vegetable intake more accurately than a standard FFQ, particularly in the context of dietary intervention studies that promote increased vegetable intake to reduce the risk for chronic disease.
OBJECTIVE: To develop a validated, focused Cruciferous Vegetable Food Frequency Questionnaire (FFQ) as an assessment tool for specific quantification of dietary cruciferous vegetable exposure. DESIGN/ METHODS:Participants (n=107; 18 to 76 years old) completed a standard FFQ and the Cruciferous Vegetable FFQ twice over a 2-week period. Repeat dietary recalls were collected on 3 days over the same 2-week period. Urinary dithiocarbamate was determined as a biomarker of cruciferous vegetable intake. STATISTICAL ANALYSES: Descriptive statistics of intake; paired t tests and sign tests for comparison of intake estimates between instruments; Spearman correlations to assess reliability and associations between diet instruments and urinary dithiocarbamate. RESULTS: Cruciferous vegetable intake was significantly correlated between the two FFQs (r(s)=0.58), although the Cruciferous Vegetable FFQ estimated intake 35 g higher than the standard FFQ. The Cruciferous Vegetable FFQ was reliable, with a repeated measures correlation of 0.69 (P</=0.01). Urinary dithiocarbamate excretion correlated with cruciferous vegetable intake from the Cruciferous Vegetable FFQ (r(s)=0.26, P<0.01), and from the standard FFQ (r(s)=0.19, P=0.06). CONCLUSIONS: The Cruciferous Vegetable FFQ provided a reproducible, valid estimate of cruciferous vegetable exposure and improved the relationship between crucifer consumption and urinary dithiocarbamate, a biomarker of cruciferous vegetable exposure. The nearly twofold difference in exposure estimates between the Cruciferous Vegetable FFQ and the standard FFQ could change the statistical significance of risk estimates in the context of epidemiological research. This questionnaire is an appropriate research tool to evaluate cruciferous vegetable intake more accurately than a standard FFQ, particularly in the context of dietary intervention studies that promote increased vegetable intake to reduce the risk for chronic disease.
Authors: Lauren L Atwell; Zhenzhen Zhang; Motomi Mori; Paige Farris; John T Vetto; Arpana M Naik; Karen Y Oh; Philippe Thuillier; Emily Ho; Jackilen Shannon Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2015-10-28
Authors: Emily Vogtmann; Gong Yang; Hong-Lan Li; Jing Wang; Li-Hua Han; Qi-Jun Wu; Li Xie; Quiyin Cai; Guo-Liang Li; John W Waterbor; Emily B Levitan; Bin Zhang; Yu-Tang Gao; Wei Zheng; Yong-Bing Xiang; Xiao-Ou Shu Journal: Public Health Nutr Date: 2014-08-07 Impact factor: 4.022
Authors: Sarah J O Nomura; Yi-Ting Hwang; Scarlett Lin Gomez; Teresa T Fung; Shu-Lan Yeh; Chiranjeev Dash; Laura Allen; Serena Philips; Leena Hilakivi-Clarke; Yun-Ling Zheng; Judy Huei-Yu Wang Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-12-11 Impact factor: 4.624
Authors: Jack Coode-Bate; Tharsini Sivapalan; Antonietta Melchini; Shikha Saha; Paul W Needs; Jack R Dainty; Jean-Bapiste Maicha; Gemma Beasy; Maria H Traka; Robert D Mills; Richard Y Ball; Richard F Mithen Journal: Mol Nutr Food Res Date: 2019-09-11 Impact factor: 5.914
Authors: Tracey L Livingstone; Shikha Saha; Federico Bernuzzi; George M Savva; Perla Troncoso-Rey; Maria H Traka; Robert D Mills; Richard Y Ball; Richard F Mithen Journal: Nutrients Date: 2022-08-10 Impact factor: 6.706