Literature DB >> 21562232

Uncertainty in intake due to portion size estimation in 24-hour recalls varies between food groups.

Olga W Souverein1, Waldo J de Boer, Anouk Geelen, Hilko van der Voet, Jeanne H de Vries, Max Feinberg, Pieter van't Veer.   

Abstract

Portion size estimation is expected to be one of the largest sources of uncertainty in dietary assessment of the individual. Therefore, we demonstrated a method to quantify uncertainty due to portion size estimation in the usual intake distributions of vegetables, fruit, bread, protein, and potassium. Dutch participants of the European Food Consumption Validation study completed 2 nonconsecutive 24-h recall interviews. In short, the uncertainty analysis consists of Monte Carlo simulations drawing values for portion size from lognormal uncertainty distributions. The uncertainty of the usual intake distribution and accompanying parameters (IQR and the shrinkage factor) were estimated. For the food groups, portion size uncertainty had the greatest effect for vegetables and the least for fruit: the relative 95% uncertainty interval (UI) of the IQR of the usual intake distribution was 0.61-1.35 for vegetables, 0.77-1.24 for bread, and 0.99-1.10 for fruit. For protein and potassium, the resulting relative width of the UI of the IQR for portion size uncertainty are similar: 0.88-1.14 for protein and 0.86-1.14 for potassium. Furthermore, a sensitivity analysis illustrated the importance of the specified uncertainty distributions. The examples show that uncertainty in portion sizes may be more important for some foods such as vegetables. This may reflect differential quantification errors by food groups that deserve further consideration. In conclusion, the presented methodology allows the important quantification of portion size uncertainty and extensions to include other sources of uncertainty is straightforward.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21562232     DOI: 10.3945/jn.111.139220

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Nutr        ISSN: 0022-3166            Impact factor:   4.798


  6 in total

1.  Comparison of two dietary assessment methods by food consumption: results of the German National Nutrition Survey II.

Authors:  Marianne Eisinger-Watzl; Andrea Straßburg; Josa Ramünke; Carolin Krems; Thorsten Heuer; Ingrid Hoffmann
Journal:  Eur J Nutr       Date:  2014-05-15       Impact factor: 5.614

Review 2.  The nutrition consult for recurrent stone formers.

Authors:  Kristina L Penniston
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 3.092

3.  A Potential Tool for Clinicians; Evaluating a Computer-Led Dietary Assessment Method in Overweight and Obese Women during Weight Loss.

Authors:  Adrianne M Widaman; Nancy L Keim; Dustin J Burnett; Beverly Miller; Megan G Witbracht; Keith F Widaman; Kevin D Laugero
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 5.717

4.  Effects of selenium supplementation on paraoxonase-1 and myeloperoxidase activity in subjects with cardiovascular disease: the Selenegene study, a double-blind randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Amirhossein Mirmohammadsadeghi; Mojgan Gharipour; Hamidreza Roohafza; Minoo Dianatkhah; Masoumeh Sadeghi
Journal:  Arch Med Sci Atheroscler Dis       Date:  2018-08-24

5.  Major dietary patterns in Iranian adolescents: Isfahan Healthy Heart Program, Iran.

Authors:  Omolbanin Kafeshani; Nizal Sarrafzadegan; Fatemeh Nouri; Noushin Mohammadifard
Journal:  ARYA Atheroscler       Date:  2015-02

6.  Complementary feeding practices and nutrient intakes of children aged 6-24 months from Bangladeshi background living in Tower Hamlets, East London: a feasibility study.

Authors:  Laura Jabri; Diana Margot Rosenthal; Lorna Benton; Monica Lakhanpaul
Journal:  J Health Popul Nutr       Date:  2020-02-28       Impact factor: 2.000

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.