↓ Skip to main content

Questionários de Frequência de Consumo Alimentar desenvolvidos e validados para população do Brasil: revisão da literatura

Overview of attention for article published in Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 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
Questionários de Frequência de Consumo Alimentar desenvolvidos e validados para população do Brasil: revisão da literatura
Published in
Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, September 2015
DOI 10.1590/1413-81232015209.12602014
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dixis Figueroa Pedraza, Tarciana Nobre de Menezes

Abstract

Assessing food intake is a challenge for researchers given the inherent complexity of the issue. One of the methods used in epidemiological studies is the Food Frequency Questionnaire (FFQ). The scope of this paper was to identify studies that developed and/or validated the FFQ in Brazil, analyzing the methods used and the main results of the validation. The PubMed, LILACS and SciELO databases were researched for studies published prior to 2013 on the development and validation of the FFQ in Brazil. These studies were analyzed according to: i) the main methodological characteristics of the elaboration/validation process of the questionnaires; ii) the key results related to validation. Forty-one studies were assessed: 6 on the development of the FFQ; 18 on the development and validation of the FFQ; 17 on the validation of the FFQ. There were inter-regional differences in the publications and methodological differences in the elaboration and validation of the FFQ. Adults and adolescents were the groups most covered for the validation of the FFQ, though specific studies for children < 5 years of age were not found. The methodological rigor and statistical results guarantee the suitability of the validation of the FFQ for the target populations, with high correlations for energy, carbohydrates, fibers, calcium and vitamin C.

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 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 23%
Student > Master 3 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 9 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 6 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 13 42%
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 05 September 2015.
All research outputs
#20,655,488
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#1,507
of 2,034 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#203,162
of 276,788 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#23
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 2,034 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 276,788 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 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.