使用多日记录和生化标记的食物频率问卷的验证:三联法的应用。

J P Daurès, M Gerber, J Scali, C Astre, C Bonifacj, R Kaaks
{"title":"使用多日记录和生化标记的食物频率问卷的验证:三联法的应用。","authors":"J P Daurès,&nbsp;M Gerber,&nbsp;J Scali,&nbsp;C Astre,&nbsp;C Bonifacj,&nbsp;R Kaaks","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A food-frequency questionnaire (FFQ) used to assess usual food intake in Southern France has been validated by the classical means of multiple-day food records. To minimise over-estimation of the correlation between the dietary assessments by the FFQ and the reference method, which occurs if the random errors of questionnaire and reference measurement are positively correlated, a triangular comparison, the method of triads, was used.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We applied the triads model by comparing the FFQ with two multiple-day food records and three biomarkers. Only 87 subjects were included and completed the protocol. One biomarker (beta-carotene) was used for the 87 subjects and two biomarkers (urinary nitrogen and potassium) were measured in only 40 subjects.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For beta-carotene intake assessment, the triad model, including the weighed multiple records (PETRA), was the best with estimates of validity coefficient of 0.39 [confidence interval (CI) 0.18-0.60] for the FFQ, 0.52 (CI 0.24-0.86), for PETRA and 0.85 (CI 0.43-1) for plasma levels of the nutrient. For protein and potassium intake assessment, the triad model including the estimated multiple records was the best only for the estimates of FFQ validity coefficient (0.61; CI 0.28-0.96 and 0.31; CI 0.09-0.66 respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Accuracy of the dietary assessment methods permitted a satisfactory estimation of the validity coefficient for beta-carotene intake by the FFQ, despite a small sample. However, the validity coefficients for protein and potassium showed wide CI values, indicating that a sample size < 50 subjects appears unsatisfactory for validation.</p>","PeriodicalId":80024,"journal":{"name":"Journal of epidemiology and biostatistics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validation of a food-frequency questionnaire using multiple-day records and biochemical markers: application of the triads method.\",\"authors\":\"J P Daurès,&nbsp;M Gerber,&nbsp;J Scali,&nbsp;C Astre,&nbsp;C Bonifacj,&nbsp;R Kaaks\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A food-frequency questionnaire (FFQ) used to assess usual food intake in Southern France has been validated by the classical means of multiple-day food records. To minimise over-estimation of the correlation between the dietary assessments by the FFQ and the reference method, which occurs if the random errors of questionnaire and reference measurement are positively correlated, a triangular comparison, the method of triads, was used.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We applied the triads model by comparing the FFQ with two multiple-day food records and three biomarkers. Only 87 subjects were included and completed the protocol. One biomarker (beta-carotene) was used for the 87 subjects and two biomarkers (urinary nitrogen and potassium) were measured in only 40 subjects.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For beta-carotene intake assessment, the triad model, including the weighed multiple records (PETRA), was the best with estimates of validity coefficient of 0.39 [confidence interval (CI) 0.18-0.60] for the FFQ, 0.52 (CI 0.24-0.86), for PETRA and 0.85 (CI 0.43-1) for plasma levels of the nutrient. For protein and potassium intake assessment, the triad model including the estimated multiple records was the best only for the estimates of FFQ validity coefficient (0.61; CI 0.28-0.96 and 0.31; CI 0.09-0.66 respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Accuracy of the dietary assessment methods permitted a satisfactory estimation of the validity coefficient for beta-carotene intake by the FFQ, despite a small sample. However, the validity coefficients for protein and potassium showed wide CI values, indicating that a sample size < 50 subjects appears unsatisfactory for validation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":80024,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of epidemiology and biostatistics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2000-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of epidemiology and biostatistics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of epidemiology and biostatistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:一项食物频率问卷(FFQ)用于评估法国南部的日常食物摄入量,该问卷已通过多日食物记录的经典方法得到验证。如果问卷的随机误差和参考测量值呈正相关,那么FFQ和参考测量值之间的相关性就会被高估,为了尽量减少这种高估,我们使用了三角比较,即三元分析法。方法:我们将FFQ与两种多日食物记录和三种生物标志物进行比较,应用三合一模型。只有87名受试者被纳入并完成了方案。一种生物标志物(β -胡萝卜素)用于87名受试者,两种生物标志物(尿氮和尿钾)仅用于40名受试者。结果:对于β -胡萝卜素摄入量评估,包括加权多重记录(PETRA)在内的三元模型是最好的,FFQ的效度系数估计为0.39[置信区间(CI) 0.18-0.60], PETRA的效度系数估计为0.52 (CI 0.24-0.86),血浆营养水平的效度系数估计为0.85 (CI 0.43-1)。对于蛋白质和钾摄入量的评估,包括估计多重记录的三重模型仅对FFQ效度系数的估计是最好的(0.61;CI分别为0.28-0.96和0.31;CI分别为0.09-0.66)。结论:尽管样本量小,但膳食评估方法的准确性使FFQ对β -胡萝卜素摄入量的效度系数的估计令人满意。然而,蛋白质和钾的效度系数显示出较宽的CI值,这表明样本量< 50名受试者似乎不能令人满意。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Validation of a food-frequency questionnaire using multiple-day records and biochemical markers: application of the triads method.

Background: A food-frequency questionnaire (FFQ) used to assess usual food intake in Southern France has been validated by the classical means of multiple-day food records. To minimise over-estimation of the correlation between the dietary assessments by the FFQ and the reference method, which occurs if the random errors of questionnaire and reference measurement are positively correlated, a triangular comparison, the method of triads, was used.

Methods: We applied the triads model by comparing the FFQ with two multiple-day food records and three biomarkers. Only 87 subjects were included and completed the protocol. One biomarker (beta-carotene) was used for the 87 subjects and two biomarkers (urinary nitrogen and potassium) were measured in only 40 subjects.

Results: For beta-carotene intake assessment, the triad model, including the weighed multiple records (PETRA), was the best with estimates of validity coefficient of 0.39 [confidence interval (CI) 0.18-0.60] for the FFQ, 0.52 (CI 0.24-0.86), for PETRA and 0.85 (CI 0.43-1) for plasma levels of the nutrient. For protein and potassium intake assessment, the triad model including the estimated multiple records was the best only for the estimates of FFQ validity coefficient (0.61; CI 0.28-0.96 and 0.31; CI 0.09-0.66 respectively).

Conclusion: Accuracy of the dietary assessment methods permitted a satisfactory estimation of the validity coefficient for beta-carotene intake by the FFQ, despite a small sample. However, the validity coefficients for protein and potassium showed wide CI values, indicating that a sample size < 50 subjects appears unsatisfactory for validation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Statistical Inference Population, Exposure, and Outcome Measures of Disease Frequency Practice Problem Workbook Solutions Case Reports and Case Series
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1