C Börnhorst1, I Huybrechts2, A Hebestreit1, V Krogh3, A De Decker4, G Barba5, L A Moreno6, L Lissner7, M Tornaritis8, H-M Loit9, D Molnár10, I Pigeot11. 1. Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology-BIPS, Bremen, Germany. 2. 1] Department of Public Health, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium [2] Dietary Exposure Assessment Groups, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France. 3. Epidemiology and Prevention Unit, Fondazione IRCSS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy. 4. Department of Public Health, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. 5. Epidemiology and Population Genetics, Institute of Food Science, CNR, Avellino, Italy. 6. 1] GENUD (Growth, Exercise, Nutrition and Development) Research Group. Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain [2] Faculty of Medicine, University of Brazil, Sao Paulo, Brazil. 7. Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. 8. Research and Education Institute of Child Health, Strovolos, Cyprus. 9. Center of Health and Behavioral Science, National Institute for Health Development, Tallinn, Estonia. 10. Department of Paediatrics, Medical Faculty, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary. 11. 1] Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology-BIPS, Bremen, Germany [2] Faculty of Computer Science and Mathematics, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Valid estimates of population intakes are essential for monitoring trends as well as for nutritional interventions, but such data are rare in young children. In particular, the problem of misreporting in dietary data is usually not accounted for. Therefore, this study aims to provide accurate estimates of intake distributions in European children. DESIGN: Cross-sectional setting-based multi-centre study. SUBJECTS: A total of 9560 children aged 2-9 years from eight European countries with at least one 24-h dietary recall (24-HDR). METHODS: The 24-HDRs were classified in three reporting groups based on age- and sex-specific Goldberg cutoffs (underreports, plausible reports, overreports). Only plausible reports were considered in the final analysis (N=8611 children). The National Cancer Institute (NCI)-Method was applied to estimate population distributions of usual intakes correcting for the variance inflation in short-term dietary data. RESULTS: The prevalence of underreporting (9.5%) was higher compared with overreporting (3.4%). Exclusion of misreports resulted in a shift of the energy and absolute macronutrient intake distributions to the right, and further led to the exclusion of extreme values, that is, mean values and lower percentiles increased, whereas upper percentiles decreased. The distributions of relative macronutrient intakes (% energy intake from fat/carbohydrates/proteins) remained almost unchanged when excluding misreports. Application of the NCI-Method resulted in markedly narrower intake distributions compared with estimates based on single 24-HDRs. Mean percentages of usual energy intake from fat, carbohydrates and proteins were 32.2, 52.1 and 15.7%, respectively, suggesting the majority of European children are complying with common macronutrient intake recommendations. In contrast, total water intake (mean: 1216.7 ml per day) lay below the recommended value for >90% of the children. CONCLUSION: This study provides recent estimates of intake distributions of European children correcting for misreporting as well as for the daily variation in dietary data. These data may help to assess the adequacy of young children's diets in Europe.
OBJECTIVE: Valid estimates of population intakes are essential for monitoring trends as well as for nutritional interventions, but such data are rare in young children. In particular, the problem of misreporting in dietary data is usually not accounted for. Therefore, this study aims to provide accurate estimates of intake distributions in European children. DESIGN: Cross-sectional setting-based multi-centre study. SUBJECTS: A total of 9560 children aged 2-9 years from eight European countries with at least one 24-h dietary recall (24-HDR). METHODS: The 24-HDRs were classified in three reporting groups based on age- and sex-specific Goldberg cutoffs (underreports, plausible reports, overreports). Only plausible reports were considered in the final analysis (N=8611 children). The National Cancer Institute (NCI)-Method was applied to estimate population distributions of usual intakes correcting for the variance inflation in short-term dietary data. RESULTS: The prevalence of underreporting (9.5%) was higher compared with overreporting (3.4%). Exclusion of misreports resulted in a shift of the energy and absolute macronutrient intake distributions to the right, and further led to the exclusion of extreme values, that is, mean values and lower percentiles increased, whereas upper percentiles decreased. The distributions of relative macronutrient intakes (% energy intake from fat/carbohydrates/proteins) remained almost unchanged when excluding misreports. Application of the NCI-Method resulted in markedly narrower intake distributions compared with estimates based on single 24-HDRs. Mean percentages of usual energy intake from fat, carbohydrates and proteins were 32.2, 52.1 and 15.7%, respectively, suggesting the majority of European children are complying with common macronutrient intake recommendations. In contrast, total water intake (mean: 1216.7 ml per day) lay below the recommended value for >90% of the children. CONCLUSION: This study provides recent estimates of intake distributions of European children correcting for misreporting as well as for the daily variation in dietary data. These data may help to assess the adequacy of young children's diets in Europe.
Authors: W Ahrens; K Bammann; A Siani; K Buchecker; S De Henauw; L Iacoviello; A Hebestreit; V Krogh; L Lissner; S Mårild; D Molnár; L A Moreno; Y P Pitsiladis; L Reisch; M Tornaritis; T Veidebaum; I Pigeot Journal: Int J Obes (Lond) Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 5.095
Authors: A S Donin; C M Nightingale; C G Owen; A R Rudnicka; M C McNamara; C J Prynne; A M Stephen; D G Cook; P H Whincup Journal: Br J Nutr Date: 2010-03-16 Impact factor: 3.718
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: Traci A Bekelman; Corby K Martin; Susan L Johnson; Deborah H Glueck; Katherine A Sauder; Kylie K Harrall; Rachel I Steinberg; Daniel S Hsia; Dana Dabelea Journal: Br J Nutr Date: 2021-06-04 Impact factor: 3.718
Authors: Ana M López-Sobaler; Aránzazu Aparicio; Liliana G González-Rodríguez; Esther Cuadrado-Soto; Josefa Rubio; Victoria Marcos; Rosa Sanchidrián; Sara Santos; Napoleón Pérez-Farinós; Marian Ángeles Dal Re; Carmen Villar; Teresa Robledo; J Javier Castrodeza; Rosa M Ortega Journal: Nutrients Date: 2017-02-13 Impact factor: 5.717
Authors: Casandra Madrigal; María José Soto-Méndez; Ángela Hernández-Ruiz; Teresa Valero; Federico Lara Villoslada; Rosaura Leis; Emilio Martínez de Victoria; José Manuel Moreno; Rosa M Ortega; María Dolores Ruiz-López; Gregorio Varela-Moreiras; Ángel Gil Journal: Nutrients Date: 2021-03-24 Impact factor: 5.717
Authors: Carmen Piernas; Donna R Miles; Denise M Deming; Kathleen C Reidy; Barry M Popkin Journal: Public Health Nutr Date: 2015-08-18 Impact factor: 4.022
Authors: Casandra Madrigal; María José Soto-Méndez; Ángela Hernández-Ruiz; Teresa Valero; José Manuel Ávila; Emma Ruiz; Federico Lara Villoslada; Rosaura Leis; Emilio Martínez de Victoria; José Manuel Moreno; Rosa M Ortega; María Dolores Ruiz-López; Gregorio Varela-Moreiras; Ángel Gil Journal: Nutrients Date: 2020-03-25 Impact factor: 5.717