NHC Key Laboratory of Trace Element Nutrition, National Institute for Nutrition and Health, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing 100050, China.
Nutrients. 2022 May 7;14(9):1960. doi: 10.3390/nu14091960.
The specific forms of 24 h dietary recall used by national nutrition surveys differ, such as two non-consecutive days and three consecutive days. However, it is unclear which form of 24 h dietary recall is more accurate in the Chinese population. The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of 24 h recalls on two consecutive days (C2), three consecutive days (C3), two non-consecutive days (NC2), and three non-consecutive days (NC3) in estimating Chinese adult dietary intake. A total of 595 participants completed more than twenty-three 24 h recalls. The average of all completed 24 h recalls of each subject was defined as the individual’s true dietary intake. The dietary intake in the four scenarios of 24 h recalls was calculated using the within-person mean (WPM) method and National Cancer Institute (NCI) method and compared with the true values. Equivalent testing was used to evaluate whether scenarios NC2 and C3 were equivalent. Bias and mean bias were used as a measure of precision and accuracy, respectively. For the WPM method, the precision between the four scenarios was similar. For mean, the accuracy between the four scenarios was similar, yielding estimates that were close to the true intakes. However, for percentiles, the accuracy in descending order was scenario NC3, C3, NC2, and C2. Furthermore, the difference between two and three days was greater than that between consecutive and non-consecutive days. In most case, the distribution of dietary intakes calculated from scenarios NC2 and C3 was equivalent with equivalence margins of 5% (p < 0.05). Usually, the NCI method was significantly more accurate than the WPM method. We concluded that three non-consecutive 24 h recalls relative to three consecutive days increases accuracy. Two non-consecutive days can be substituted to some extent for three consecutive days. The new form of 24 h recall needs to be used with caution when applied practically in the China nutrition surveys. Furthermore, using the NCI method to calculate dietary intake from 24 h recall may be a way to reduce costs and increase accuracy.
24 小时膳食回顾在全国营养调查中的具体形式不同，如连续两天和连续三天。然而，尚不清楚哪种形式的 24 小时膳食回顾在中国人群中更准确。本研究旨在比较连续两天（C2）、连续三天（C3）、非连续两天（NC2）和非连续三天（NC3）24 小时回顾在估计中国成年人饮食摄入方面的表现。共有 595 名参与者完成了 23 多次 24 小时回忆。每位受试者所有完成的 24 小时回忆的平均值被定义为个体的真实饮食摄入量。使用个体内平均值（WPM）方法和国家癌症研究所（NCI）方法计算 24 小时回忆的四个场景中的饮食摄入量，并与真实值进行比较。等效检验用于评估场景 NC2 和 C3 是否等效。偏差和平均偏差分别用作精度和准确性的度量。对于 WPM 方法，四个场景之间的精度相似。对于平均值，四个场景之间的准确性相似，产生的估计值接近真实摄入量。然而，对于百分位数，准确性降序为场景 NC3、C3、NC2 和 C2。此外，两天和三天之间的差异大于连续和非连续之间的差异。在大多数情况下，从场景 NC2 和 C3 计算的饮食摄入量分布等效，等效边际为 5%（p<0.05）。通常，NCI 方法明显比 WPM 方法更准确。我们得出结论，与连续三天相比，三天的非连续 24 小时回忆会提高准确性。非连续两天在一定程度上可以替代连续三天。在实际应用于中国营养调查时，新的 24 小时回忆形式需要谨慎使用。此外，使用 NCI 方法从 24 小时回忆中计算饮食摄入可能是一种降低成本和提高准确性的方法。
