↓ Skip to main content

Relative validity of a diet history questionnaire against a four-day weighed food record among older men in Australia: The Concord Health and Ageing in Men Project (CHAMP)

Overview of attention for article published in The journal of nutrition, health & aging, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
Title
Relative validity of a diet history questionnaire against a four-day weighed food record among older men in Australia: The Concord Health and Ageing in Men Project (CHAMP)
Published in
The journal of nutrition, health & aging, June 2015
DOI 10.1007/s12603-015-0499-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Waern Rosilene, R. Cumming, T. Travison, F. Blyth, V. Naganathan, M. Allman-Farinelli, V. Hirani

Abstract

To evaluate the relative validity of the diet history questionnaire (DHQ) used in the Concord Health and Ageing in Men Project (CHAMP) against a four-day weighed food record (4dWFR) as the reference method. Detailed DHQ followed by a 4dWFR were completed between July 2012 and October of 2013. Burwood, Canada Bay and Strathfield in Sydney, Australia. Fifty six community- dwelling men aged 75 years and over (mean=79 years). DHQ estimates of intakes were generally higher than estimates from 4dWFR. Differences between the two methods were generally less than 20% with the exception of β-carotene (37%). Fixed and proportional biases were only present for retinol, β-carotene, magnesium, phosphorus and percentage of energy from protein; however, 95% limits of agreement were in some cases wide. Pearson correlation coefficient of log-transformed unadjusted values ranged from 0.15 (zinc) to 0.70 (alcohol), and from 0.06 (iron) to 0.63 (thiamin) after energy-adjustment. Spearman's correlation coefficients ranged from 0.16 (zinc) to 0.80 (alcohol) before energy adjustment, and from 0.15(zinc) to 0.81(alcohol) after energy adjustment. Our findings suggest that the DHQ used in CHAMP to measure the nutritional intake of its participants is appropriate to this age group and provides reasonably similar results to the 4dWFR for the majority of nutrients analysed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 21%
Other 3 11%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 6 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 14%
Psychology 2 7%
Chemical Engineering 1 4%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 5 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 10 June 2016.
All research outputs
#20,947,998
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from The journal of nutrition, health & aging
#1,746
of 2,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,543
of 282,125 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The journal of nutrition, health & aging
#17
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,003 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 282,125 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.