These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Doubly labelled water-calibration approach attenuates the underestimation of energy intake calculated from self-reported dietary assessment data in Japanese older adults.
    Author: Watanabe D, Yoshida T, Yoshimura E, Nanri H, Goto C, Ishikawa-Takata K, Ebine N, Fujita H, Kimura M, Yamada Y, Kyoto-Kameoka Study Group.
    Journal: Public Health Nutr; 2021 Sep 02; 25(7):1-11. PubMed ID: 34472428.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: Self-reported energy intake (EI) estimation may incur systematic errors that could be attenuated through biomarker calibration. We aimed to confirm whether calibrated EI was comparable to total energy expenditure (TEE) measured using the doubly labelled water (DLW) technique. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: General older population from the Kyoto-Kameoka Study, Japan. PARTICIPANTS: This study included sub- and main cohorts of 72 and 8058 participants aged≥ 65 years, respectively. EI was evaluated using a validated FFQ, and calibrated EI was obtained using a previously developed equation based on the DLW method. TEE was considered representative of true EI and also measured using the DLW method. We used a Wilcoxon signed-rank test and correlation analysis to compare the uncalibrated and calibrated EI with TEE. RESULTS: In the sub-cohort, the median TEE, uncalibrated EI and calibrated EI were 8559 kJ, 7088 kJ and 9269 kJ, respectively. The uncalibrated EI was significantly lower than the TEE (median difference = -1847 kJ; interquartile range (IQR): -2785 to -1096), although the calibrated EI was not (median difference = 463 kJ; IQR: -330 to 1541). The uncalibrated (r = 0·275) and calibrated EI (r = 0·517) significantly correlated with TEE. The reproducibility was higher for calibrated EI (interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0·982) than for uncalibrated EI (ICC = 0·637). Similar findings were observed when stratifying the sample by sex. For medians, uncalibrated EI was lower (about 17 %) than calibrated EI in the main cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Biomarker calibration may improve the accuracy of self-reported dietary intake estimation.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]