Qi Cui1, Yang Xia1, Qijun Wu1, Qing Chang1, Kaijun Niu2, Yuhong Zhao3. 1. Present address: Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China. 2. Present address: Nutritional Epidemiology Institute and School of Public Health, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China. nkj0809@gmail.com. 3. Present address: Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China. zhaoyuhong@sj-hospital.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reproducibility of FFQs measures the consistency of the same subject at different time points. We performed a meta-analysis to explore the reproducibility of FFQs and factors related to reproducibility of FFQs. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A systematic literature review was performed before July 2020 using PubMed and Web of Science databases. Pooled intraclass and Spearman correlation coefficients (95% confidence interval) were calculated to assess the reproducibility of FFQs. Subgroup analyses based on characteristics of study populations, FFQs, or study design were performed to investigate factors related to the reproducibility of FFQs. A total of 123 studies comprising 20,542 participants were eligible for the meta-analysis. The pooled crude intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.499 to 0.803 and 0.499 to 0.723 for macronutrients and micronutrients, respectively. Energy-adjusted intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.420 to 0.803 and 0.507 to 0.712 for macronutrients and micronutrients, respectively. The pooled crude and energy-adjusted Spearman correlation coefficients ranged from 0.548 to 0.851 and 0.441 to 0.793, respectively, for macronutrients; and from 0.573 to 0.828 and 0.510 to 0.744, respectively, for micronutrients. FFQs with more food items, 12 months as dietary recall interval (compared to less than 12 months), and a shorter time period between repeated FFQs resulted in superior FFQ reproducibility. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, FFQs with correlation coefficients greater than 0.5 for most nutrients may be considered a reliable tool to measure dietary intake. To develop FFQs with higher reproducibility, the number of food items and dietary recall interval should be taken into consideration.
BACKGROUND: Reproducibility of FFQs measures the consistency of the same subject at different time points. We performed a meta-analysis to explore the reproducibility of FFQs and factors related to reproducibility of FFQs. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A systematic literature review was performed before July 2020 using PubMed and Web of Science databases. Pooled intraclass and Spearman correlation coefficients (95% confidence interval) were calculated to assess the reproducibility of FFQs. Subgroup analyses based on characteristics of study populations, FFQs, or study design were performed to investigate factors related to the reproducibility of FFQs. A total of 123 studies comprising 20,542 participants were eligible for the meta-analysis. The pooled crude intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.499 to 0.803 and 0.499 to 0.723 for macronutrients and micronutrients, respectively. Energy-adjusted intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.420 to 0.803 and 0.507 to 0.712 for macronutrients and micronutrients, respectively. The pooled crude and energy-adjusted Spearman correlation coefficients ranged from 0.548 to 0.851 and 0.441 to 0.793, respectively, for macronutrients; and from 0.573 to 0.828 and 0.510 to 0.744, respectively, for micronutrients. FFQs with more food items, 12 months as dietary recall interval (compared to less than 12 months), and a shorter time period between repeated FFQs resulted in superior FFQ reproducibility. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, FFQs with correlation coefficients greater than 0.5 for most nutrients may be considered a reliable tool to measure dietary intake. To develop FFQs with higher reproducibility, the number of food items and dietary recall interval should be taken into consideration.
Entities:
Keywords:
FFQ; Food frequency questionnaire; Macronutrients, micronutrients; Meta-analysis; Reproducibility
Authors: A F Malekshah; M Kimiagar; M Saadatian-Elahi; A Pourshams; M Nouraie; G Goglani; A Hoshiarrad; M Sadatsafavi; B Golestan; A Yoonesi; N Rakhshani; S Fahimi; D Nasrollahzadeh; R Salahi; A Ghafarpour; S Semnani; J P Steghens; C C Abnet; F Kamangar; S M Dawsey; P Brennan; P Boffetta; R Malekzadeh Journal: Eur J Clin Nutr Date: 2006-02-08 Impact factor: 4.016
Authors: Alan R Kristal; Ann S Kolar; James L Fisher; Jesse J Plascak; Phyllis J Stumbo; Rick Weiss; Electra D Paskett Journal: J Acad Nutr Diet Date: 2014-01-24 Impact factor: 4.910
Authors: Joan D Fernández-Ballart; Josep Lluís Piñol; Itziar Zazpe; Dolores Corella; Paula Carrasco; Estefanía Toledo; Manuel Perez-Bauer; Miguel Angel Martínez-González; Jorge Salas-Salvadó; José M Martín-Moreno Journal: Br J Nutr Date: 2010-01-27 Impact factor: 3.718
Authors: Rachel S Chang; Meng Xu; Sarah H Brown; Sarah S Cohen; Danxia Yu; Elvis A Akwo; Debra Dixon; Loren Lipworth; Deepak K Gupta Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2022-01-25 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Shan Xuan Lim; See Ling Loy; Marjorelee T Colega; Jun Shi Lai; Keith M Godfrey; Yung Seng Lee; Kok Hian Tan; Fabian Yap; Lynette Pei-Chi Shek; Yap Seng Chong; Johan G Eriksson; Jerry Kok Yen Chan; Shiao-Yng Chan; Mary Foong-Fong Chong Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2022-02-09 Impact factor: 8.472
Authors: Wen Chen; Mo'ez Al-Islam E Faris; Nicola Luigi Bragazzi; Haifa M S AlGahtani; Zahra Saif; Ahmed Jahrami; Nitin Shivappa; James R Hebert; Haitham Jahrami Journal: J Inflamm Res Date: 2021-04-15
Authors: Angela D Yu; Karen D Mumme; Cathryn A Conlon; Pamela R von Hurst; Nicola Gillies; Anne-Louise Heath; Jane Coad; Kathryn L Beck Journal: Nutrients Date: 2022-01-25 Impact factor: 5.717