BACKGROUND/AIMS: Paper-based dietary records (Paper-DR) can be replaced by web-based dietary records (Web-DR) in both epidemiological studies and clinical practice to reduce the time and logistic burden. We aimed to compare Paper-DR and Web-DR. METHODS: We compared the matching of different food items (n = 1,103) from Paper-DR and Web-DR for energy and 48 nutrients among 16 pregnant volunteers, with DR for the same individuals matched for the same 4 days. Paper-DR were coded into the web-based version (referred to as Paper-Web-DR) independently by the same research dietitian. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test comparing mean rank differences, Spearman's ρ to measure associations and Bland-Altman limits of agreement to evaluate the level of agreement between the two dietary methods across the range of parameters were used. Volunteers also completed an evaluation questionnaire regarding the user acceptability of Paper-DR and Web-DR. RESULTS: A high correlation between Paper-DR and Web-DR was noted. There were statistically insignificant differences among 45 nutrients, except for free sugars (p < 0.001), α-linolenic acid (p = 0.041), folate (p = 0.036) and pantothenic acid (p = 0.023). Volunteers found the Paper-DR equally time-consuming as the Web-DR. The majority of the volunteers (75%) preferred the Web-DR. CONCLUSIONS: Paper-DR and Web-DR were comparable across a range of nutritional parameters, with a few exceptions. The Web-DR was more convenient for the majority and has substantial logistic and cost advantages.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Paper-based dietary records (Paper-DR) can be replaced by web-based dietary records (Web-DR) in both epidemiological studies and clinical practice to reduce the time and logistic burden. We aimed to compare Paper-DR and Web-DR. METHODS: We compared the matching of different food items (n = 1,103) from Paper-DR and Web-DR for energy and 48 nutrients among 16 pregnant volunteers, with DR for the same individuals matched for the same 4 days. Paper-DR were coded into the web-based version (referred to as Paper-Web-DR) independently by the same research dietitian. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test comparing mean rank differences, Spearman's ρ to measure associations and Bland-Altman limits of agreement to evaluate the level of agreement between the two dietary methods across the range of parameters were used. Volunteers also completed an evaluation questionnaire regarding the user acceptability of Paper-DR and Web-DR. RESULTS: A high correlation between Paper-DR and Web-DR was noted. There were statistically insignificant differences among 45 nutrients, except for free sugars (p < 0.001), α-linolenic acid (p = 0.041), folate (p = 0.036) and pantothenic acid (p = 0.023). Volunteers found the Paper-DR equally time-consuming as the Web-DR. The majority of the volunteers (75%) preferred the Web-DR. CONCLUSIONS: Paper-DR and Web-DR were comparable across a range of nutritional parameters, with a few exceptions. The Web-DR was more convenient for the majority and has substantial logistic and cost advantages.
Authors: Aurélie Affret; Douae El Fatouhi; Courtney Dow; Emmanuelle Correia; Marie-Christine Boutron-Ruault; Guy Fagherazzi Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2018-07-05 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Itziar Zazpe; Susana Santiago; Carmen De la Fuente-Arrillaga; Jorge M Nuñez-Córdoba; Maira Bes-Rastrollo; Miguel Angel Martínez-González Journal: JMIR Public Health Surveill Date: 2019-10-01