Abstract
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Journal | Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 18 Mar 2019 |
Fingerprint
Bibliographical note
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.Funder
MRC MR/L02019X/1Keywords
- Validation studies
- Diet records
- Systematic Review
- Study Characteristics
- Dietary Assessment
- Limits of Agreement
Cite this
A systematic review of reviews identifying UK validated dietary assessment tools for inclusion on an interactive guided website for researchers: www.nutritools.org. / Hooson, J; Hutchinson, J; Warthon-Medina, M; Hancock, N; Greathead, K; Knowles, B; Vargas-Garcia, E; Gibson, LE; Bush, LA; Margetts, B; Robinson, S; Ness, A; Alwan, NA; Wark, PA; Roe, M; Finglas, P; Steer, T; Page, P; Johnson, Laura; Roberts, K; Amoutzopoulos, B; Burley, VJ; Greenwood, DC; Cade, JE.
In: Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 18.03.2019.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - A systematic review of reviews identifying UK validated dietary assessment tools for inclusion on an interactive guided website for researchers: www.nutritools.org
AU - Hooson, J
AU - Hutchinson, J
AU - Warthon-Medina, M
AU - Hancock, N
AU - Greathead, K
AU - Knowles, B
AU - Vargas-Garcia, E
AU - Gibson, LE
AU - Bush, LA
AU - Margetts, B
AU - Robinson, S
AU - Ness, A
AU - Alwan, NA
AU - Wark, PA
AU - Roe, M
AU - Finglas, P
AU - Steer, T
AU - Page, P
AU - Johnson, Laura
AU - Roberts, K
AU - Amoutzopoulos, B
AU - Burley, VJ
AU - Greenwood, DC
AU - Cade, JE
N1 - This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
PY - 2019/3/18
Y1 - 2019/3/18
N2 - Background: Health researchers may struggle to choose suitable validated dietary assessment tools (DATs) for their target population. The aim of this review was to identify and collate information on validated UK DATs and validation studies for inclusion on a website to support researchers to choose appropriate DATs. Design: a systematic review of reviews of DATs was undertaken, DATs validated in UK populations were extracted from the studies identified . A searchable website was designed to display this data. Additionally, mean differences and limits of agreement between test and comparison methods were summarised by method, weighting by sample size. Results: Over 900 validation results covering 5 life-stages, 18 nutrients, 6 dietary assessment methods and 9 validation method types were extracted from 63 validated DATs which were identified from 68 reviews. These were incorporated into www.nutritools.org. Limits of Agreement were determined for about half of validations. 34 DATs were FFQs. Only 17 DATs were validated against biomarkers, and only 19 DATs were validated in infant/children/adolescents. Conclusions: The interactive www.nutritools.org website holds extensive validation data identified from this review and can be used to guide researchers to critically compare and choose a suitable DAT for their research question, leading to improvement of nutritional epidemiology research.
AB - Background: Health researchers may struggle to choose suitable validated dietary assessment tools (DATs) for their target population. The aim of this review was to identify and collate information on validated UK DATs and validation studies for inclusion on a website to support researchers to choose appropriate DATs. Design: a systematic review of reviews of DATs was undertaken, DATs validated in UK populations were extracted from the studies identified . A searchable website was designed to display this data. Additionally, mean differences and limits of agreement between test and comparison methods were summarised by method, weighting by sample size. Results: Over 900 validation results covering 5 life-stages, 18 nutrients, 6 dietary assessment methods and 9 validation method types were extracted from 63 validated DATs which were identified from 68 reviews. These were incorporated into www.nutritools.org. Limits of Agreement were determined for about half of validations. 34 DATs were FFQs. Only 17 DATs were validated against biomarkers, and only 19 DATs were validated in infant/children/adolescents. Conclusions: The interactive www.nutritools.org website holds extensive validation data identified from this review and can be used to guide researchers to critically compare and choose a suitable DAT for their research question, leading to improvement of nutritional epidemiology research.
KW - Validation studies
KW - Diet records
KW - Systematic Review
KW - Study Characteristics
KW - Dietary Assessment
KW - Limits of Agreement
U2 - 10.1080/10408398.2019.1566207
DO - 10.1080/10408398.2019.1566207
M3 - Article
JO - Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition
JF - Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition
SN - 1040-8398
ER -