Investigating sex differences in the accuracy of dietary assessment methods to measure energy intake in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
dietary methodology
doubly labeled water
energy expenditure
energy intake
meta-analysis
sex differences
systematic review
Journal
The American journal of clinical nutrition
ISSN: 1938-3207
Titre abrégé: Am J Clin Nutr
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0376027
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 05 2021
08 05 2021
Historique:
received:
20
08
2020
accepted:
13
11
2020
pubmed:
11
2
2021
medline:
22
6
2021
entrez:
10
2
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To inform the interpretation of dietary data in the context of sex differences in diet-disease relations, it is important to understand whether there are any sex differences in accuracy of dietary reporting. To quantify sex differences in self-reported total energy intake (TEI) compared with a reference measure of total energy expenditure (TEE). Six electronic databases were systematically searched for published original research articles between 1980 and April 2020. Studies were included if they were conducted in adult populations with measures for both females and males of self-reported TEI and TEE from doubly labeled water (DLW). Studies were screened and quality assessed independently by 2 authors. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to pool the mean differences between TEI and TEE for, and between, females and males, by method of dietary assessment. From 1313 identified studies, 31 met the inclusion criteria. The studies collectively included information on 4518 individuals (54% females). Dietary assessment methods included 24-h recalls (n = 12, 2 with supplemental photos of food items consumed), estimated food records (EFRs; n = 11), FFQs (n = 10), weighed food records (WFRs, n = 5), and diet histories (n = 2). Meta-analyses identified underestimation of TEI by females and males, ranging from -1318 kJ/d (95% CI: -1967, -669) for FFQ to -2650 kJ/d (95% CI: -3492, -1807) for 24-h recalls for females, and from -1764 kJ/d (95% CI: -2285, -1242) for FFQ to -3438 kJ/d (95% CI: -5382, -1494) for WFR for males. There was no difference in the level of underestimation by sex, except when using EFR, for which males underestimated energy intake more than females (by 590 kJ/d, 95% CI: 35, 1,146). Substantial underestimation of TEI across a range of dietary assessment methods was identified, similar by sex. These underestimations should be considered when assessing TEI and interpreting diet-disease relations.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
To inform the interpretation of dietary data in the context of sex differences in diet-disease relations, it is important to understand whether there are any sex differences in accuracy of dietary reporting.
OBJECTIVE
To quantify sex differences in self-reported total energy intake (TEI) compared with a reference measure of total energy expenditure (TEE).
METHODS
Six electronic databases were systematically searched for published original research articles between 1980 and April 2020. Studies were included if they were conducted in adult populations with measures for both females and males of self-reported TEI and TEE from doubly labeled water (DLW). Studies were screened and quality assessed independently by 2 authors. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to pool the mean differences between TEI and TEE for, and between, females and males, by method of dietary assessment.
RESULTS
From 1313 identified studies, 31 met the inclusion criteria. The studies collectively included information on 4518 individuals (54% females). Dietary assessment methods included 24-h recalls (n = 12, 2 with supplemental photos of food items consumed), estimated food records (EFRs; n = 11), FFQs (n = 10), weighed food records (WFRs, n = 5), and diet histories (n = 2). Meta-analyses identified underestimation of TEI by females and males, ranging from -1318 kJ/d (95% CI: -1967, -669) for FFQ to -2650 kJ/d (95% CI: -3492, -1807) for 24-h recalls for females, and from -1764 kJ/d (95% CI: -2285, -1242) for FFQ to -3438 kJ/d (95% CI: -5382, -1494) for WFR for males. There was no difference in the level of underestimation by sex, except when using EFR, for which males underestimated energy intake more than females (by 590 kJ/d, 95% CI: 35, 1,146).
CONCLUSION
Substantial underestimation of TEI across a range of dietary assessment methods was identified, similar by sex. These underestimations should be considered when assessing TEI and interpreting diet-disease relations.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33564834
pii: S0002-9165(22)00699-2
doi: 10.1093/ajcn/nqaa370
pmc: PMC8106762
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1241-1255Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society for Nutrition.
Références
J Nutr. 1996 Jan;126(1):348S-354S
pubmed: 8558321
J Acad Nutr Diet. 2015 Sep;115(9):1392-9
pubmed: 26122282
Eur J Clin Nutr. 1997 Dec;51(12):856-63
pubmed: 9426361
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2008 Nov;62(11):1343-50
pubmed: 17671444
J Acad Nutr Diet. 2015 Jan;115(1):64-77
pubmed: 25441955
Am J Prev Med. 2013 Mar;44(3):297-301
pubmed: 23415128
Stat Med. 2005 Jun 15;24(11):1657-82
pubmed: 15736283
Ann Behav Med. 2004 Apr;27(2):107-16
pubmed: 15053018
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2002 Apr;56(4):358-67
pubmed: 11965513
BMJ. 2017 Aug 16;358:j3683
pubmed: 28814563
J Nutr Sci. 2019 Aug 30;8:e29
pubmed: 31501691
Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019 Mar;7(3):231-240
pubmed: 30704950
Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1998 Apr;22(4):303-11
pubmed: 9578234
Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom. 2010 Mar 15;24(5):506-10
pubmed: 20112270
Age Ageing. 2015 Jan;44(1):103-8
pubmed: 25341675
Eur J Clin Nutr. 1997 Jun;51(6):405-13
pubmed: 9192200
Obes Res. 1994 Nov;2(6):541-8
pubmed: 16355515
Am J Epidemiol. 2003 Jul 1;158(1):14-21; discussion 22-6
pubmed: 12835281
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2016 May;70(5):640-1
pubmed: 26669571
Metabolism. 1992 Jul;41(7):744-53
pubmed: 1619993
Am J Epidemiol. 2011 Dec 1;174(11):1256-65
pubmed: 22021561
Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Aug;88(2):324-32
pubmed: 18689367
Adv Nutr. 2015 Jan 15;6(1):5-18
pubmed: 25593140
Am J Epidemiol. 2003 Jul 1;158(1):1-13
pubmed: 12835280
Am J Clin Nutr. 2014 Jan;99(1):71-8
pubmed: 24257721
Am J Epidemiol. 2015 Jun 15;181(12):996-1007
pubmed: 25995289
J Health Psychol. 2002 May;7(3):219-31
pubmed: 22114246
J Nutr Sci. 2016 Oct 3;5:e39
pubmed: 27752306
Br J Nutr. 2001 Apr;85(4):415-30
pubmed: 11348556
Lancet. 2016 Oct 8;388(10053):1659-1724
pubmed: 27733284
Br J Nutr. 2006 Mar;95(3):640-9
pubmed: 16512951
J Food Compost Anal. 2017 Dec;64(Pt 1):18-26
pubmed: 29230079
Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2000 Jan;24(1):20-6
pubmed: 10702746
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2016 Nov;70(11):1259-1264
pubmed: 27273069
Nutrients. 2019 Jul 09;11(7):
pubmed: 31323937
Br J Nutr. 2015 Feb 14;113(3):464-72
pubmed: 25585294
BMJ. 1990 Mar 17;300(6726):708-12
pubmed: 2386561
Obes Rev. 2019 Nov;20 Suppl 2:10-19
pubmed: 31099480
Am J Epidemiol. 2011 Mar 15;173(6):683-94
pubmed: 21343245
BMJ Open. 2020 Jun 1;10(6):e035611
pubmed: 32487576
Am J Epidemiol. 2014 Jul 15;180(2):172-88
pubmed: 24918187
Health Rep. 2008 Dec;19(4):37-45
pubmed: 19226926
Eur J Clin Nutr. 1998 Nov;52(11):832-8
pubmed: 9846597
Am J Clin Nutr. 1996 Jan;63(1):15-21
pubmed: 8604664
Am J Clin Nutr. 2002 Sep;76(3):529-34
pubmed: 12197995
Nutrition. 2002 Jul-Aug;18(7-8):568-73
pubmed: 12093431
Nutrients. 2019 Oct 29;11(11):
pubmed: 31671741
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2005 Sep;59(9):989-95
pubmed: 16015274
Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Dec;88(6):1504-10
pubmed: 19064509
J Am Geriatr Soc. 1999 Jun;47(6):710-5
pubmed: 10366171
Br J Nutr. 2015 Jan 28;113(2):284-91
pubmed: 25430667
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2019 Dec 17;10:850
pubmed: 31920966
Stat Med. 2008 Dec 20;27(29):6072-92
pubmed: 18800342
Am J Clin Nutr. 2018 Jan 1;107(1):80-93
pubmed: 29381789