↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of a Mobile Phone Image-Based Dietary Assessment Method in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes

Overview of attention for article published in Nutrients, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
81 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
152 Mendeley
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
Evaluation of a Mobile Phone Image-Based Dietary Assessment Method in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes
Published in
Nutrients, June 2015
DOI 10.3390/nu7064897
Pubmed ID
Authors

Megan E. Rollo, Susan Ash, Philippa Lyons-Wall, Anthony W. Russell

Abstract

Image-based dietary records have limited evidence evaluating their performance and use among adults with a chronic disease. This study evaluated the performance of a 3-day mobile phone image-based dietary record, the Nutricam Dietary Assessment Method (NuDAM), in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Criterion validity was determined by comparing energy intake (EI) with total energy expenditure (TEE) measured by the doubly-labelled water technique. Relative validity was established by comparison to a weighed food record (WFR). Inter-rater reliability was assessed by comparing estimates of intake from three dietitians. Ten adults (6 males, age: 61.2 ± 6.9 years old, BMI: 31.0 ± 4.5 kg/m2) participated. Compared to TEE, mean EI (MJ/day) was significantly under-reported using both methods, with a mean ratio of EI:TEE 0.76 ± 0.20 for the NuDAM and 0.76 ± 0.17 for the WFR. Correlations between the NuDAM and WFR were mostly moderate for energy (r = 0.57), carbohydrate (g/day) (r = 0.63, p < 0.05), protein (g/day) (r = 0.78, p < 0.01) and alcohol (g/day) (rs = 0.85, p < 0.01), with a weaker relationship for fat (g/day) (r = 0.24). Agreement between dietitians for nutrient intake for the 3-day NuDAM (Intra-class Correlation Coefficient (ICC) = 0.77-0.99) was lower when compared with the 3-day WFR (ICC = 0.82-0.99). These findings demonstrate the performance and feasibility of the NuDAM to assess energy and macronutrient intake in a small sample. Some modifications to the NuDAM could improve efficiency and an evaluation in a larger group of adults with T2DM is required.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 152 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 150 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 18%
Researcher 25 16%
Student > Master 21 14%
Student > Bachelor 21 14%
Other 10 7%
Other 26 17%
Unknown 22 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 33 22%
Social Sciences 13 9%
Computer Science 9 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 6%
Other 23 15%
Unknown 32 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 27 July 2017.
All research outputs
#13,241,705
of 23,341,064 outputs
Outputs from Nutrients
#10,533
of 18,225 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,407
of 265,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrients
#94
of 142 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,341,064 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 18,225 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.5. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 265,443 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 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 142 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.