C Börnhorst1, S Bel-Serrat2, I Pigeot1, I Huybrechts3, C Ottavaere4, I Sioen4, S De Henauw5, T Mouratidou2, M I Mesana2, K Westerterp6, K Bammann7, L Lissner8, G Eiben8, V Pala9, M Rayson10, V Krogh9, L A Moreno11. 1. BIPS - Institute for Epidemiology and Prevention Research, Bremen, Germany. 2. GENUD (Growth, Exercise, Nutrition and Development) Research Group, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain. 3. Department of Public Health, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium; Dietary Exposure Assessment Groups, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France. 4. Department of Public Health, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. 5. Department of Public Health, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium; University College Ghent, Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Faculty of Health Care "Vesalius", Ghent, Belgium. 6. Department of Human Biology, Maastricht University, The Netherlands. 7. BIPS - Institute for Epidemiology and Prevention Research, Bremen, Germany; Institute for Public Health and Nursing Research, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany. 8. Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. 9. Department of Preventive and Predictive Medicine, Nutritional Epidemiology Unit, Fondazione IRCSS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy. 10. BioTel Ltd. Clifton, Clifton, Bristol, United Kingdom. 11. GENUD (Growth, Exercise, Nutrition and Development) Research Group, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain. Electronic address: lmoreno@unizar.es.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Little is known about the validity of repeated 24-h dietary recalls (24-HDR) as a measure of total energy intake (EI) in young children. This study aimed to evaluate the validity of proxy-reported EI by comparison with total energy expenditure (TEE) measured by the doubly labeled water (DLW) technique. METHODS: The agreement between EI and TEE was investigated in 36 (47.2% boys) children aged 4-10 years from Belgium and Spain using subgroup analyses and Bland-Altman plots. Low-energy-reporters (LER), adequate-energy-reporters (AER) and high-energy-reporters (HER) were defined from the ratio of EI over TEE by application of age- and sex-specific cut-off values. RESULTS: There was good agreement between means of EI (1500 kcal/day) and TEE (1523 kcal/day) at group level though in single children, i.e. at the individual level, large differences were observed. Almost perfect agreement between EI and TEE was observed in thin/normal weight children (EI: 1511 kcal/day; TEE: 1513 kcal/day). Even in overweight/obese children the mean difference between EI and TEE was only -86 kcal/day. Among the participants, 28 (78%) were classified as AER, five (14%) as HER and three (8%) as LER. CONCLUSION: Two proxy-reported 24-HDRs were found to be a valid instrument to assess EI on group level but not on the individual level.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Little is known about the validity of repeated 24-h dietary recalls (24-HDR) as a measure of total energy intake (EI) in young children. This study aimed to evaluate the validity of proxy-reported EI by comparison with total energy expenditure (TEE) measured by the doubly labeled water (DLW) technique. METHODS: The agreement between EI and TEE was investigated in 36 (47.2% boys) children aged 4-10 years from Belgium and Spain using subgroup analyses and Bland-Altman plots. Low-energy-reporters (LER), adequate-energy-reporters (AER) and high-energy-reporters (HER) were defined from the ratio of EI over TEE by application of age- and sex-specific cut-off values. RESULTS: There was good agreement between means of EI (1500 kcal/day) and TEE (1523 kcal/day) at group level though in single children, i.e. at the individual level, large differences were observed. Almost perfect agreement between EI and TEE was observed in thin/normal weight children (EI: 1511 kcal/day; TEE: 1513 kcal/day). Even in overweight/obesechildren the mean difference between EI and TEE was only -86 kcal/day. Among the participants, 28 (78%) were classified as AER, five (14%) as HER and three (8%) as LER. CONCLUSION: Two proxy-reported 24-HDRs were found to be a valid instrument to assess EI on group level but not on the individual level.
Authors: C Börnhorst; I Huybrechts; A Hebestreit; V Krogh; A De Decker; G Barba; L A Moreno; L Lissner; M Tornaritis; H-M Loit; D Molnár; I Pigeot Journal: Int J Obes (Lond) Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 5.095
Authors: María Isabel Mesana Graffe; V Pala; S De Henauw; G Eiben; C Hadjigeorgiou; L Iacoviello; T Intemann; H Jilani; D Molnar; P Russo; T Veidebaum; L A Moreno Journal: Eur J Nutr Date: 2019-04-04 Impact factor: 5.614
Authors: A Hebestreit; C Börnhorst; V Pala; G Barba; G Eiben; T Veidebaum; C Hadjigergiou; D Molnár; M Claessens; J M Fernández-Alvira; I Pigeot Journal: Int J Obes (Lond) Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 5.095
Authors: C Delisle Nyström; J Pomeroy; P Henriksson; E Forsum; F B Ortega; R Maddison; J H Migueles; M Löf Journal: Eur J Clin Nutr Date: 2017-07-26 Impact factor: 4.016
Authors: K Bammann; W Gwozdz; C Pischke; G Eiben; J M Fernandez-Alvira; S De Henauw; L Lissner; L A Moreno; Y Pitsiladis; L Reisch; T Veidebaum; I Pigeot Journal: Int J Obes (Lond) Date: 2016-08-16 Impact factor: 5.095
Authors: H Zamrazilová; I Aldhoon-Hainerová; R L Atkinson; L Dušátková; B Sedláčková; Z P Lee; M Kunešová; M Hill; V Hainer Journal: Int J Obes (Lond) Date: 2015-08-25 Impact factor: 5.095
Authors: G Tognon; L A Moreno; T Mouratidou; T Veidebaum; D Molnár; P Russo; A Siani; Y Akhandaf; V Krogh; M Tornaritis; C Börnhorst; A Hebestreit; I Pigeot; L Lissner Journal: Int J Obes (Lond) Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 5.095