OBJECTIVE: As misreporting, mostly under-reporting, of dietary intake is a generally known problem in nutritional research, we aimed to analyse the association between selected determinants and the extent of misreporting by the duplicate portion method (DP), 24 h recall (24hR) and FFQ by linear regression analysis using the biomarker values as unbiased estimates. DESIGN: For each individual, two DP, two 24hR, two FFQ and two 24 h urinary biomarkers were collected within 1·5 years. Also, for sixty-nine individuals one or two doubly labelled water measurements were obtained. The associations of basic determinants (BMI, gender, age and level of education) with misreporting of energy, protein and K intake of the DP, 24hR and FFQ were evaluated using linear regression analysis. Additionally, associations between other determinants, such as physical activity and smoking habits, and misreporting were investigated. SETTING: The Netherlands. SUBJECTS: One hundred and ninety-seven individuals aged 20-70 years. RESULTS: Higher BMI was associated with under-reporting of dietary intake assessed by the different dietary assessment methods for energy, protein and K, except for K by DP. Men tended to under-report protein by the DP, FFQ and 24hR, and persons of older age under-reported K but only by the 24hR and FFQ. When adjusted for the basic determinants, the other determinants did not show a consistent association with misreporting of energy or nutrients and by the different dietary assessment methods. CONCLUSIONS: As BMI was the only consistent determinant of misreporting, we conclude that BMI should always be taken into account when assessing and correcting dietary intake.
OBJECTIVE: As misreporting, mostly under-reporting, of dietary intake is a generally known problem in nutritional research, we aimed to analyse the association between selected determinants and the extent of misreporting by the duplicate portion method (DP), 24 h recall (24hR) and FFQ by linear regression analysis using the biomarker values as unbiased estimates. DESIGN: For each individual, two DP, two 24hR, two FFQ and two 24 h urinary biomarkers were collected within 1·5 years. Also, for sixty-nine individuals one or two doubly labelled water measurements were obtained. The associations of basic determinants (BMI, gender, age and level of education) with misreporting of energy, protein and K intake of the DP, 24hR and FFQ were evaluated using linear regression analysis. Additionally, associations between other determinants, such as physical activity and smoking habits, and misreporting were investigated. SETTING: The Netherlands. SUBJECTS: One hundred and ninety-seven individuals aged 20-70 years. RESULTS: Higher BMI was associated with under-reporting of dietary intake assessed by the different dietary assessment methods for energy, protein and K, except for K by DP. Men tended to under-report protein by the DP, FFQ and 24hR, and persons of older age under-reported K but only by the 24hR and FFQ. When adjusted for the basic determinants, the other determinants did not show a consistent association with misreporting of energy or nutrients and by the different dietary assessment methods. CONCLUSIONS: As BMI was the only consistent determinant of misreporting, we conclude that BMI should always be taken into account when assessing and correcting dietary intake.
Entities:
Keywords:
Biomarkers of intake; Determinants of misreporting; Dietary intake assessment; Doubly labelled water; Duplicate portion
Authors: Emily P Wyckoff; Brittney C Evans; Stephanie M Manasse; Meghan L Butryn; Evan M Forman Journal: Appetite Date: 2016-12-29 Impact factor: 3.868
Authors: Richard D Mattes; Sylvia B Rowe; Sarah D Ohlhorst; Andrew W Brown; Daniel J Hoffman; DeAnn J Liska; Edith J M Feskens; Jaapna Dhillon; Katherine L Tucker; Leonard H Epstein; Lynnette M Neufeld; Michael Kelley; Naomi K Fukagawa; Roger A Sunde; Steven H Zeisel; Anthony J Basile; Laura E Borth; Emahlea Jackson Journal: Adv Nutr Date: 2022-08-01 Impact factor: 11.567
Authors: Y C de Vries; M M G A van den Berg; J H M de Vries; S Boesveldt; J Th C M de Kruif; N Buist; A Haringhuizen; M Los; D W Sommeijer; J H N Timmer-Bonte; H W M van Laarhoven; M Visser; E Kampman; R M Winkels Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-03-16 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Sandra N Slagter; Eva Corpeleijn; Melanie M van der Klauw; Anna Sijtsma; Linda G Swart-Busscher; Corine W M Perenboom; Jeanne H M de Vries; Edith J M Feskens; Bruce H R Wolffenbuttel; Daan Kromhout; Jana V van Vliet-Ostaptchouk Journal: Nutr J Date: 2018-02-12 Impact factor: 3.271
Authors: Saskia Wouters; Viviane Thewissen; Mira Duif; Rob Jh van Bree; Lilian Lechner; Nele Jacobs Journal: Public Health Nutr Date: 2018-05-29 Impact factor: 4.022
Authors: Louise H Dekker; Martin H de Borst; Laura M G Meems; Rudolf A de Boer; Stephan J L Bakker; Gerjan J Navis Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-08-08 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Elske M Brouwer-Brolsma; Martinette T Streppel; Linde van Lee; Anouk Geelen; Diewertje Sluik; Anne M van de Wiel; Jeanne H M de Vries; Pieter van 't Veer; Edith J M Feskens Journal: Nutrients Date: 2017-10-18 Impact factor: 5.717
Authors: Saskia Meijboom; Martinette T van Houts-Streppel; Corine Perenboom; Els Siebelink; Anne M van de Wiel; Anouk Geelen; Edith J M Feskens; Jeanne H M de Vries Journal: J Nutr Sci Date: 2017-09-19