1. A systematic review of reviews identifying UK validated dietary assessment tools for inclusion on an interactive guided website for researchers: www.nutritools.org
- Author
-
Jayne Hutchinson, Bethany Knowles, J. Hooson, Sian M. Robinson, Birdem Amoutzopoulos, Lauren E. Gibson, Janet E Cade, Barrie Margetts, Petra A. Wark, Toni Steer, Katharine Roberts, Polly Page, Andy R Ness, Neil Hancock, Linda A. Bush, Marisol Warthon-Medina, Nisreen A Alwan, Paul Finglas, Victoria J. Burley, Katharine Greathead, Laura Johnson, Elisa J Vargas-Garcia, Mark Roe, and Darren C. Greenwood
- Subjects
Dietary Assessment ,Dietary assessment ,030309 nutrition & dietetics ,Computer science ,Diet records ,Reviews ,Target population ,Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering ,03 medical and health sciences ,0404 agricultural biotechnology ,parasitic diseases ,mental disorders ,Study Characteristics ,Humans ,Research question ,Internet ,0303 health sciences ,Limits of agreement ,Reproducibility of Results ,food and beverages ,04 agricultural and veterinary sciences ,General Medicine ,040401 food science ,Data science ,Research Personnel ,United Kingdom ,Life stage ,Diet ,Limits of Agreement ,Review Literature as Topic ,Nutrition Assessment ,Validation studies ,nervous system ,Method comparison ,Systematic Review ,Inclusion (education) ,Food Science - Abstract
Background: Health researchers may struggle to choose suitable validated dietary assessment tools (DATs) for their target population. The aim of this review was to identify and collate information on validated UK DATs and validation studies for inclusion on a website to support researchers to choose appropriate DATs.Design: A systematic review of reviews of DATs was undertaken. DATs validated in UK populations were extracted from the studies identified. A searchable website was designed to display these data. Additionally, mean differences and limits of agreement between test and comparison methods were summarized by a method, weighting by sample size.Results: Over 900 validation results covering 5 life stages, 18 nutrients, 6 dietary assessment methods, and 9 validation method types were extracted from 63 validated DATs which were identified from 68 reviews. These were incorporated into www.nutritools.org. Limits of agreement were determined for about half of validations. Thirty four DATs were FFQs. Only 17 DATs were validated against biomarkers, and only 19 DATs were validated in infant/children/adolescents.Conclusions: The interactive www.nutritools.org website holds extensive validation data identified from this review and can be used to guide researchers to critically compare and choose a suitable DAT for their research question, leading to improvement of nutritional epidemiology research.
- Published
- 2019
- Full Text
- View/download PDF