↓ Skip to main content

The validity of self-reported energy intake as determined using the doubly labelled water technique

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of Nutrition, March 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users
video
4 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
458 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
295 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The validity of self-reported energy intake as determined using the doubly labelled water technique
Published in
British Journal of Nutrition, March 2007
DOI 10.1079/bjn2000281
Pubmed ID
Authors

R. J. Hill, P. S. W. Davies

Abstract

In the 1980s the development of the doubly labelled water (DLW) technique made it possible to determine the validity of dietary assessment methods using external, independent markers of intake in free-living populations. Since then, the accuracy of self-reported energy intake (EI) has been questioned on a number of occasions as under-reporting has been found to be prevalent in many different populations. This paper is a review of investigations using the DLW technique in conjunction with self-reported EI measures in groups including adults, children and adolescents, obese persons, athletes, military personnel and trekking explorers. In studies where a person other than the subject is responsible for recording dietary intake, such as parents of young children, EI generally corresponds to DLW determined energy expenditure. However, in instances where the subjects themselves report their intake, EI is generally under-reported when compared with energy expenditure. It was originally believed that this phenomenon of under-reporting was linked to increased adiposity and body size, however, it is now apparent that other factors, such as dietary restraint and socio-economic status, are also involved. This paper therefore aims to present a more comprehensive picture of under-reporting by tying in the findings of many DLW studies with other studies focusing particularly on the characteristics and mechanisms for under-reporting. Awareness of these characteristics and mechanisms will enable researchers to obtain more accurate self-reports of EI using all dietary recording techniques.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 295 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 5 2%
United States 4 1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Taiwan 1 <1%
Unknown 279 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 58 20%
Student > Master 54 18%
Student > Bachelor 42 14%
Researcher 34 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 5%
Other 41 14%
Unknown 50 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 66 22%
Sports and Recreations 46 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 27 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 9%
Psychology 20 7%
Other 41 14%
Unknown 69 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 March 2024.
All research outputs
#6,587,541
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of Nutrition
#2,673
of 6,361 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,012
of 92,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of Nutrition
#650
of 1,640 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,361 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 92,035 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,640 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.