↓ Skip to main content

Validity of an online 24-h recall tool (myfood24) for dietary assessment in population studies: comparison with biomarkers and standard interviews

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
15 news outlets
twitter
29 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
84 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
201 Mendeley
Title
Validity of an online 24-h recall tool (myfood24) for dietary assessment in population studies: comparison with biomarkers and standard interviews
Published in
BMC Medicine, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12916-018-1113-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Petra A. Wark, Laura J. Hardie, Gary S. Frost, Nisreen A. Alwan, Michelle Carter, Paul Elliott, Heather E. Ford, Neil Hancock, Michelle A. Morris, Umme Z. Mulla, Essra A. Noorwali, K. Petropoulou, David Murphy, Gregory D. M. Potter, Elio Riboli, Darren C. Greenwood, Janet E. Cade

Abstract

Online dietary assessment tools can reduce administrative costs and facilitate repeated dietary assessment during follow-up in large-scale studies. However, information on bias due to measurement error of such tools is limited. We developed an online 24-h recall (myfood24) and compared its performance with a traditional interviewer-administered multiple-pass 24-h recall, assessing both against biomarkers. Metabolically stable adults were recruited and completed the new online dietary recall, an interviewer-based multiple pass recall and a suite of reference measures. Longer-term dietary intake was estimated from up to 3 × 24-h recalls taken 2 weeks apart. Estimated intakes of protein, potassium and sodium were compared with urinary biomarker concentrations. Estimated total sugar intake was compared with a predictive biomarker and estimated energy intake compared with energy expenditure measured by accelerometry and calorimetry. Nutrient intakes were also compared to those derived from an interviewer-administered multiple-pass 24-h recall. Biomarker samples were received from 212 participants on at least one occasion. Both self-reported dietary assessment tools led to attenuation compared to biomarkers. The online tools resulted in attenuation factors of around 0.2-0.3 and partial correlation coefficients, reflecting ranking intakes, of approximately 0.3-0.4. This was broadly similar to the more administratively burdensome interviewer-based tool. Other nutrient estimates derived from myfood24 were around 10-20% lower than those from the interviewer-based tool, with wide limits of agreement. Intraclass correlation coefficients were approximately 0.4-0.5, indicating consistent moderate agreement. Our findings show that, whilst results from both measures of self-reported diet are attenuated compared to biomarker measures, the myfood24 online 24-h recall is comparable to the more time-consuming and costly interviewer-based 24-h recall across a range of measures.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 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 201 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 201 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 29 14%
Student > Master 29 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 13%
Student > Bachelor 17 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 4%
Other 26 13%
Unknown 65 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 6%
Social Sciences 9 4%
Other 18 9%
Unknown 78 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 127. 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 August 2021.
All research outputs
#320,616
of 25,080,267 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#265
of 3,922 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,879
of 336,893 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#6
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,080,267 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,922 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 336,893 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.