A systematic review of reviews identifying UK validated dietary assessment tools for inclusion on an interactive guided website for researchers: www.nutritools.org

J Hooson, J Hutchinson, M Warthon-Medina, N Hancock, K Greathead, B Knowles, E Vargas-Garcia, LE Gibson, LA Bush, B Margetts, S Robinson, A Ness, NA Alwan, PA Wark, M Roe, P Finglas, T Steer, P Page, Laura Johnson, K Roberts & 4 others B Amoutzopoulos, VJ Burley, DC Greenwood, JE Cade

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

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.
Original languageEnglish
JournalCritical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 18 Mar 2019

Fingerprint

Research Personnel
Data Display
Validation Studies
Health Services Needs and Demand
Research
Sample Size
Epidemiology
Biomarkers
Food
Health
Population

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/1

Keywords

  • 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 journalArticle

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, L, Roberts, K, Amoutzopoulos, B, Burley, VJ, Greenwood, DC & Cade, JE 2019, 'A systematic review of reviews identifying UK validated dietary assessment tools for inclusion on an interactive guided website for researchers: www.nutritools.org' Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2019.1566207
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. / A systematic review of reviews identifying UK validated dietary assessment tools for inclusion on an interactive guided website for researchers: www.nutritools.org. In: Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. 2019.
@article{a36b270e2682463b918fe43820ad4c0e,
title = "A systematic review of reviews identifying UK validated dietary assessment tools for inclusion on an interactive guided website for researchers: www.nutritools.org",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "Validation studies, Diet records, Systematic Review, Study Characteristics, Dietary Assessment, Limits of Agreement",
author = "J Hooson and J Hutchinson and M Warthon-Medina and N Hancock and K Greathead and B Knowles and E Vargas-Garcia and LE Gibson and LA Bush and B Margetts and S Robinson and A Ness and NA Alwan and PA Wark and M Roe and P Finglas and T Steer and P Page and Laura Johnson and K Roberts and B Amoutzopoulos and VJ Burley and DC Greenwood and JE Cade",
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.",
year = "2019",
month = "3",
day = "18",
doi = "10.1080/10408398.2019.1566207",
language = "English",
journal = "Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition",
issn = "1040-8398",
publisher = "Taylor & Francis",

}

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 -