Department of Statistics, College of Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, 77843-3143, USA.
Am J Epidemiol. 2012 Feb 15;175(4):340-7. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwr317. Epub 2012 Jan 24.
With the advent of Internet-based 24-hour recall (24HR) instruments, it is now possible to envision their use in cohort studies investigating the relation between nutrition and disease. Understanding that all dietary assessment instruments are subject to measurement errors and correcting for them under the assumption that the 24HR is unbiased for usual intake, here the authors simultaneously address precision, power, and sample size under the following 3 conditions: 1) 1-12 24HRs; 2) a single calibrated food frequency questionnaire (FFQ); and 3) a combination of 24HR and FFQ data. Using data from the Eating at America's Table Study (1997-1998), the authors found that 4-6 administrations of the 24HR is optimal for most nutrients and food groups and that combined use of multiple 24HR and FFQ data sometimes provides data superior to use of either method alone, especially for foods that are not regularly consumed. For all food groups but the most rarely consumed, use of 2-4 recalls alone, with or without additional FFQ data, was superior to use of FFQ data alone. Thus, if self-administered automated 24HRs are to be used in cohort studies, 4-6 administrations of the 24HR should be considered along with administration of an FFQ.
随着基于互联网的 24 小时回顾（24HR）仪器的出现，现在可以设想在队列研究中使用它们来研究营养与疾病之间的关系。理解所有饮食评估仪器都存在测量误差，并假设 24HR 对通常摄入量无偏，作者在此同时在以下 3 种情况下解决精度、功效和样本量问题：1）1-12 个 24HR；2）单个校准的食物频率问卷（FFQ）；3）24HR 和 FFQ 数据的组合。作者使用来自“美国人饮食研究”（1997-1998 年）的数据发现，对于大多数营养素和食物组，4-6 次 24HR 是最佳的，并且同时使用多个 24HR 和 FFQ 数据有时会提供比单独使用任何一种方法更好的数据，尤其是对于那些不经常食用的食物。对于所有食物组，但最不常食用的食物除外，单独使用 2-4 次回忆，无论是否有额外的 FFQ 数据，都优于单独使用 FFQ 数据。因此，如果要在队列研究中使用自我管理的自动化 24HR，应考虑进行 4-6 次 24HR 管理，同时还应管理 FFQ。
