Department of Nutritional Behaviour, Max Rubner-Institut, Federal Research Institute of Nutrition and Food, Haid-und-Neu-Str. 9, 76131, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Department of Physiology and Biochemistry of Nutrition, Max Rubner-Institut, Federal Research Institute of Nutrition and Food, Haid-und-Neu-Str. 9, 76131, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Eur J Nutr. 2019 Feb;58(1):193-210. doi: 10.1007/s00394-017-1583-z. Epub 2017 Nov 30.
Comparison of food consumption, nutrient intake and underreporting of diet history interviews, 24-h recalls and weighed food records to gain further insight into specific strength and limitations of each method and to support the choice of the adequate dietary assessment method.
For 677 participants (14-80 years) of the German National Nutrition Survey II confidence intervals for food consumption and nutrient intake were calculated on basis of bootstrapping samples, Cohen's d for the relevance of differences, and intraclass correlation coefficients for the degree of agreement of dietary assessment methods. Low energy reporters were identified with Goldberg cut-offs.
In 7 of 18 food groups diet history interviews showed higher consumption means than 24-h recalls and weighed food records. Especially mean values of food groups perceived as socially desirable, such as fruit and vegetables, were highest for diet history interviews. For "raw" and "cooked vegetables", the diet history interviews showed a mean consumption of 144 and 109 g/day in comparison with 68 and 70 g/day in 24-h recalls and 76 and 75 g/day in weighed food records, respectively. For "fruit", diet history interviews showed a mean consumption of 256 g/day in comparison with 164 g/day in 24-h recalls and 147 g/day in weighed food records. No major differences regarding underreporting of energy intake were found between dietary assessment methods.
With regard to estimating food consumption and nutrient intake, 24-h recalls and weighed food records showed smaller differences and better agreement than pairwise comparisons with diet history interviews.
比较食物消费、营养素摄入以及饮食史访谈、24 小时回顾和称重食物记录的漏报情况，以进一步了解每种方法的具体优势和局限性，并为选择适当的膳食评估方法提供支持。
对德国国家营养调查 II 中的 677 名参与者（14-80 岁），基于 bootstrap 样本计算食物消费和营养素摄入的置信区间，使用 Cohen's d 评估差异的相关性，以及采用组内相关系数评估膳食评估方法的一致性程度。采用 Goldberg 截断值识别低能量报告者。
在 18 种食物组中，有 7 种食物组的饮食史访谈显示出比 24 小时回顾和称重食物记录更高的消费均值。特别是，被认为是社会期望的食物组，如水果和蔬菜，在饮食史访谈中显示出最高的均值。对于“生”和“熟”蔬菜，饮食史访谈显示的平均摄入量分别为 144g/天和 109g/天，而 24 小时回顾和称重食物记录的摄入量分别为 68g/天和 70g/天，以及 76g/天和 75g/天。对于“水果”，饮食史访谈显示的平均摄入量为 256g/天，而 24 小时回顾和称重食物记录的摄入量分别为 164g/天和 147g/天。在能量摄入的漏报方面，不同膳食评估方法之间没有发现重大差异。
在估计食物消费和营养素摄入方面，24 小时回顾和称重食物记录与饮食史访谈相比，差异更小，一致性更好。
