Suppr超能文献

在大型队列中收集3天食物记录的实用方法。

A practical method for collecting 3-day food records in a large cohort.

作者信息

Kolar Ann Shattuck, Patterson Ruth E, White Emily, Neuhouser Marian L, Frank Laura L, Standley Judi, Potter John D, Kristal Alan R

机构信息

Cancer Prevention Program, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA 98109-1024, USA.

出版信息

Epidemiology. 2005 Jul;16(4):579-83. doi: 10.1097/01.ede.0000165363.27323.ac.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Recent studies suggest that diet records are more valid measures of nutrient intake than are food-frequency questionnaires. However, food records are considered unsuitable for large studies due to the need to train participants and to review and correct completed records.

METHODS

We evaluated a self-administered 3-day food record protocol in Washington State. One hundred men and women age 50-76 years were mailed a food record and serving-size booklet. Sixty-five people returned a completed food record and were subsequently interviewed to obtain missing information. The food records were analyzed with and without added information from the interview.

RESULTS

The most common error was incomplete description, which affected 8% of recorded foods. Differences in mean nutrient intake between the uncorrected and corrected records were within 5%, and nutrient estimates from the 2 methods were highly correlated.

CONCLUSIONS

This streamlined protocol yielded data comparable to those collected by more burdensome protocols, suggesting that the use of food records may be feasible in large cohort studies.

摘要

背景

近期研究表明,饮食记录比食物频率问卷更能有效地衡量营养素摄入量。然而,由于需要对参与者进行培训以及对填写好的记录进行审核和校正,食物记录被认为不适用于大型研究。

方法

我们在华盛顿州评估了一种自行管理的3天饮食记录方案。向100名年龄在50 - 76岁的男性和女性邮寄了一份饮食记录和一份食物分量手册。65人返回了填写完整的饮食记录,随后对他们进行访谈以获取缺失信息。分别在有和没有访谈补充信息的情况下对饮食记录进行分析。

结果

最常见的错误是描述不完整,这影响了8%的记录食物。未校正记录与校正记录之间的平均营养素摄入量差异在5%以内,两种方法得出的营养素估计值高度相关。

结论

这种简化方案得出的数据与那些通过更繁琐方案收集的数据相当,这表明在大型队列研究中使用饮食记录可能是可行的。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验