Validity of dietary assessment methods compared with doubly labeled water in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis

IF 8 2区医学 Q1 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM Obesity Reviews Pub Date : 2024-05-24 DOI:10.1111/obr.13768

Sanaz Mehranfar, Yahya Jalilpiran, Alireza Jafari, Ahmad Jayedi, Sakineh Shab-bidar, John R. Speakman, Kurosh Djafarian

{"title":"Validity of dietary assessment methods compared with doubly labeled water in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Sanaz Mehranfar, Yahya Jalilpiran, Alireza Jafari, Ahmad Jayedi, Sakineh Shab-bidar, John R. Speakman, Kurosh Djafarian","doi":"10.1111/obr.13768","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>We aimed to validate dietary assessment methods against the gold standard, doubly labeled water (DLW), for estimating total energy intake (TEI).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases were searched until May 2023. Inclusion criteria encompassed studies involving participants aged 1–18 years, employing dietary assessment methods like food records, dietary histories, food frequency questionnaire (FFQ), or 24-h recalls estimating TEI alongside DLW to measure total energy expenditure (TEE). Data were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis models.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Thirty-three studies were identified, with sample sizes ranging from 9 to 118 participants. Meta-analysis of 22 studies identified underestimation of TEI (mean difference [MD] = −262.9 kcal/day [95% CI: −380.0, −145.8]; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 93.55%) for food records compared with TEE estimated by DLW. Other dietary assessment methods, including food recalls (<i>n</i> = 9) (MD = 54.2 kcal/day [95% CI: −19.8, 128.1]; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 49.62%), FFQ (<i>n</i> = 7) (MD = 44.5 kcal/day [95% CI: −317.8, 406.8]; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 94.94%), and diet history (<i>n</i> = 3) (MD = −130.8 kcal/day [95% CI: −455.8, 194.1]; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 77.48%), showed no significant differences in TEI compared with DLW-estimated TEE. All studies were of high quality.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Food records may underestimate TEI, yet additional research is needed to identify the most accurate methods for assessing children's dietary intake.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":216,"journal":{"name":"Obesity Reviews","volume":"25 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Obesity Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/obr.13768","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

We aimed to validate dietary assessment methods against the gold standard, doubly labeled water (DLW), for estimating total energy intake (TEI).

Methods

PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases were searched until May 2023. Inclusion criteria encompassed studies involving participants aged 1–18 years, employing dietary assessment methods like food records, dietary histories, food frequency questionnaire (FFQ), or 24-h recalls estimating TEI alongside DLW to measure total energy expenditure (TEE). Data were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis models.

Results

Thirty-three studies were identified, with sample sizes ranging from 9 to 118 participants. Meta-analysis of 22 studies identified underestimation of TEI (mean difference [MD] = −262.9 kcal/day [95% CI: −380.0, −145.8]; I² = 93.55%) for food records compared with TEE estimated by DLW. Other dietary assessment methods, including food recalls (n = 9) (MD = 54.2 kcal/day [95% CI: −19.8, 128.1]; I² = 49.62%), FFQ (n = 7) (MD = 44.5 kcal/day [95% CI: −317.8, 406.8]; I² = 94.94%), and diet history (n = 3) (MD = −130.8 kcal/day [95% CI: −455.8, 194.1]; I² = 77.48%), showed no significant differences in TEI compared with DLW-estimated TEE. All studies were of high quality.

Conclusion

Food records may underestimate TEI, yet additional research is needed to identify the most accurate methods for assessing children's dietary intake.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

儿童膳食评估方法与双标水的有效性比较：系统回顾和荟萃分析。

目的我们旨在对照黄金标准--双标记水（DLW）--验证膳食评估方法，以估算总能量摄入量（TEI）：方法：检索了 PubMed、Scopus、Web of Science 和 Google Scholar 数据库，检索期至 2023 年 5 月。纳入标准包括涉及 1-18 岁参与者的研究，这些研究采用食物记录、膳食史、食物频率问卷（FFQ）或 24 小时回忆等膳食评估方法估算总能量摄入量（TEI），同时使用 DLW 测量总能量消耗（TEE）。采用随机效应荟萃分析模型对数据进行了汇总：共发现 33 项研究，样本量从 9 到 118 人不等。对 22 项研究进行的荟萃分析发现，与 DLW 估算的 TEE 相比，食物记录的 TEI 被低估（平均差 [MD] = -262.9 千卡/天 [95% CI: -380.0, -145.8]；I2 = 93.55%）。其他膳食评估方法，包括食物回忆（n = 9）（MD = 54.2 千卡/天 [95% CI: -19.8, 128.1]；I2 = 49.62%）、FFQ（n = 7）（MD = 44.5 千卡/天 [95% CI: -317.8, 406.8]; I2 = 94.94%）和饮食史（n = 3）（MD = -130.8 kcal/day [95% CI: -455.8, 194.1]; I2 = 77.48%）显示，与 DLW 估算的 TEE 相比，TEI 没有显著差异。所有研究的质量都很高：结论：食物记录可能会低估 TEI，但仍需开展更多研究，以确定评估儿童膳食摄入量的最准确方法。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Obesity Reviews 医学-内分泌学与代谢

CiteScore

19.30

自引率

1.10%

发文量

130

审稿时长

1 months

期刊介绍： Obesity Reviews is a monthly journal publishing reviews on all disciplines related to obesity and its comorbidities. This includes basic and behavioral sciences, clinical treatment and outcomes, epidemiology, prevention and public health. The journal should, therefore, appeal to all professionals with an interest in obesity and its comorbidities. Review types may include systematic narrative reviews, quantitative meta-analyses and narrative reviews but all must offer new insights, critical or novel perspectives that will enhance the state of knowledge in the field. The editorial policy is to publish high quality peer-reviewed manuscripts that provide needed new insight into all aspects of obesity and its related comorbidities while minimizing the period between submission and publication.