AJCN Cancer Health Disparities Conference
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Beaton, G. H.
Right arrow Articles by Ritenbaugh, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Beaton, G. H.
Right arrow Articles by Ritenbaugh, C.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Beaton, G. H.
Right arrow Articles by Ritenbaugh, C.

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol 65, 1100S-1107S, Copyright © 1997 by The American Society for Clinical Nutrition, Inc


REVIEW ARTICLES

Errors in the interpretation of dietary assessments

GH Beaton, J Burema and C Ritenbaugh
Department of Nutritional Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. g.beaton@utoronto.ca

Two years ago, I reviewed the analytic effect of error in the estimation of dietary intake, describing the emphasis on the "random" day-to-day variation in reported intake. Interest in this area is increasing and there are signs of progress in analytic strategies. This paper focuses on two concerns about the use of dietary data in analyses. The effect of different methods of adjusting analyses of fat and a health outcome for energy is illustrated through an exploration of the association between fat intake and high body mass index in data sets from the US Department of Agriculture and a Dutch national survey. Both a shift in the analytic question and a change in the error structure occur as analysis strategies are changed, leading to confusion in interpretation. The paper also addresses the growing concern about bias in the estimation of intake and the possibility that differential bias moves with stratification variables of analytic interest. The increasing use of doubly labeled water estimates of energy expenditure as a gold standard for checking on overall bias in reporting is commendable. There will always be error in dietary assessments. The challenge is to understand, estimate, and make use of the error structure during analysis.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J. Nutr.Home page
M. B. E. Livingstone and A. E. Black
Markers of the Validity of Reported Energy Intake
J. Nutr., March 1, 2003; 133(3): 895S - 920.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Clin. Nutr.Home page
S. M Innis and S. L Elias
Intakes of essential n-6 and n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids among pregnant Canadian women
Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, February 1, 2003; 77(2): 473 - 478.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Clin. Nutr.Home page
J. L Freudenheim
Study design and hypothesis testing: issues in the evaluation of evidence from research in nutritional epidemiology
Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, June 1, 1999; 69 (6): 1315S - 1321S.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1997 by The American Society for Nutrition