Suppr超能文献

在两项食物频率问卷验证研究中,参考方法的称重食物记录程序比较。

Comparison of weighed food record procedures for the reference methods in two validation studies of food frequency questionnaires.

作者信息

Ishii Yuri, Ishihara Junko, Takachi Ribeka, Shinozawa Yurie, Imaeda Nahomi, Goto Chiho, Wakai Kenji, Takahashi Toshiaki, Iso Hiroyasu, Nakamura Kazutoshi, Tanaka Junta, Shimazu Taichi, Yamaji Taiki, Sasazuki Shizuka, Sawada Norie, Iwasaki Motoki, Mikami Haruo, Kuriki Kiyonori, Naito Mariko, Okamoto Naoko, Kondo Fumi, Hosono Satoyo, Miyagawa Naoko, Ozaki Etsuko, Katsuura-Kamano Sakurako, Ohnaka Keizo, Nanri Hinako, Tsunematsu-Nakahata Noriko, Kayama Takamasa, Kurihara Ayako, Kojima Shiomi, Tanaka Hideo, Tsugane Shoichiro

机构信息

Faculty of Nutritional Science, Sagami Women's University, Kanagawa, Japan; Epidemiology and Prevention Group, Research Center for Cancer Prevention and Screening, National Cancer Center, Tokyo, Japan.

Faculty of Nutritional Science, Sagami Women's University, Kanagawa, Japan; Epidemiology and Prevention Group, Research Center for Cancer Prevention and Screening, National Cancer Center, Tokyo, Japan.

出版信息

J Epidemiol. 2017 Jul;27(7):331-337. doi: 10.1016/j.je.2016.08.008. Epub 2017 Mar 13.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Although open-ended dietary assessment methods, such as weighed food records (WFRs), are generally considered to be comparable, differences between procedures may influence outcome when WFRs are conducted independently. In this paper, we assess the procedures of WFRs in two studies to describe their dietary assessment procedures and compare the subsequent outcomes.

METHODS

WFRs of 12 days (3 days for four seasons) were conducted as reference methods for intake data, in accordance with the study protocol, among a subsample of participants of two large cohort studies. We compared the WFR procedures descriptively. We also compared some dietary intake variables, such as the frequency of foods and dishes and contributing foods, to determine whether there were differences in the portion size distribution and intra- and inter-individual variation in nutrient intakes caused by the difference in procedures.

RESULTS

General procedures of the dietary records were conducted in accordance with the National Health and Nutrition Survey and were the same for both studies. Differences were seen in 1) selection of multiple days (non-consecutive days versus consecutive days); and 2) survey sheet recording method (individual versus family participation). However, the foods contributing to intake of energy and selected nutrients, the portion size distribution, and intra- and inter-individual variation in nutrient intakes were similar between the two studies.

CONCLUSION

Our comparison of WFR procedures in two independent studies revealed several differences. Notwithstanding these procedural differences, however, the subsequent outcomes were similar.

摘要

背景

尽管开放式饮食评估方法,如称重食物记录(WFRs),通常被认为具有可比性,但当独立进行WFRs时,不同的操作程序可能会影响结果。在本文中,我们评估了两项研究中WFRs的操作程序,以描述其饮食评估程序并比较后续结果。

方法

按照研究方案,在两项大型队列研究的部分参与者中,进行了为期12天(四个季节各3天)的WFRs,作为摄入数据的参考方法。我们对WFR程序进行了描述性比较。我们还比较了一些饮食摄入变量,如食物和菜肴的频率以及贡献食物,以确定程序差异是否会导致份量分布以及个体内和个体间营养素摄入量的差异。

结果

饮食记录的一般程序按照国家健康和营养调查进行,两项研究相同。在以下方面存在差异:1)多天的选择(非连续日与连续日);2)调查问卷记录方法(个人参与与家庭参与)。然而,两项研究中对能量和选定营养素摄入有贡献的食物、份量分布以及个体内和个体间营养素摄入量的差异相似。

结论

我们对两项独立研究中WFR程序的比较揭示了一些差异。然而,尽管存在这些程序差异,后续结果相似。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验