Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Comparison of duplicate portion and 24 h recall as reference methods for validating a FFQ using urinary markers as the estimate of true intake

  • Laura Trijsburg (a1), Jeanne H. M. de Vries (a1), Hendriek C. Boshuizen (a1) (a2), Paul J. M. Hulshof (a1), Peter C. H. Hollman (a1), Pieter van 't Veer (a1) and Anouk Geelen (a1)...

Abstract

As FFQ are subject to measurement error, associations between self-reported intake by FFQ and outcome measures should be adjusted by correction factors obtained from a validation study. Whether the correction is adequate depends on the characteristics of the reference method used in the validation study. Preferably, reference methods should (1) be unbiased and (2) have uncorrelated errors with those in the FFQ. The aim of the present study was to assess the validity of the duplicate portion (DP) technique as a reference method and compare its validity with that of a commonly used reference method, the 24 h recall (24hR), for protein, K and Na using urinary markers as the unbiased reference method. For 198 subjects, two DP, two FFQ, two urinary biomarkers and between one and fifteen 24hR (web based and/or telephone based) were collected within 1·5 years. Multivariate measurement error models were used to estimate bias, error correlations between FFQ and DP or 24hR, and attenuation factors of these methods. The DP was less influenced by proportional scaling bias (0·58 for protein, 0·72 for K and 0·52 for Na), and correlated errors between DP and FFQ were lowest (protein 0·28, K 0·17 and Na 0·19) compared with the 24hR. Attenuation factors (protein 0·74, K 0·54 and Na 0·43) also indicated that the DP performed better than the 24hR. Therefore, the DP is probably the best available reference method for FFQ validation for nutrients that currently have no generally accepted recovery biomarker.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Comparison of duplicate portion and 24 h recall as reference methods for validating a FFQ using urinary markers as the estimate of true intake
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Comparison of duplicate portion and 24 h recall as reference methods for validating a FFQ using urinary markers as the estimate of true intake
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Comparison of duplicate portion and 24 h recall as reference methods for validating a FFQ using urinary markers as the estimate of true intake
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Corresponding author

* Corresponding author: L. Trijsburg, fax +31 317 482782, email laura.trijsburg@wur.nl

References

Hide All
1. Kipnis, V, Subar, AF, Midthune, D, et al. (2003) Structure of dietary measurement error: results of the OPEN biomarker study. Am J Epidemiol 158, 1421.
2. Kaaks, R, Riboli, E, Esteve, J, et al. (1994) Estimating the accuracy of dietary questionnaire assessments – validation in terms of structural equation models. Stat Med 13, 127142.
3. Jenab, M, Slimani, N, Bictash, M, et al. (2009) Biomarkers in nutritional epidemiology: applications, needs and new horizons. Hum Genet 125, 507525.
4. Willett, W (2013) Nutritional Epidemiology, Monographs in Epidemiology and Biostatistics . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5. Ferrari, P, Roddam, A, Fahey, MT, et al. (2009) A bivariate measurement error model for nitrogen and potassium intakes to evaluate the performance of regression calibration in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition study. Eur J Clin Nutr 63, S179S187.
6. Prentice, RL, Mossavar-Rahmani, Y, Huang, Y, et al. (2011) Evaluation and comparison of food records, recalls, and frequencies for energy and protein assessment by using recovery biomarkers. Am J Epidemiol 174, 591603.
7. Geelen, A, Souverein, OW, Busstra, MC, et al. (2014) Comparison of approaches to correct intake-health associations for FFQ measurement error using a duplicate recovery biomarker and a duplicate 24 h dietary recall as reference method. Public Health Nutr 18, 18.
8. Isaksson, B (1993) A critical evaluation of the duplicate-portion technique in dietary surveys. Eur J Clin Nutr 47, 457460.
9. Johansson, G, Åkesson, A, Berglund, M, et al. (1998) Validation with biological markers for food intake of a dietary assessment method used by Swedish women with three different with dietary preferences. Public Health Nutr 1, 199206.
10. Kim, WW, Mertz, W, Judd, JT, et al. (1984) Effect of making duplicate food collections on nutrient intakes calculated from diet records. Am J Clin Nutr 40, 13331337.
11. Stockley, L (1985) Changes in habitual food intake during weighed inventory surveys and duplication diet collections. A short review. Ecol Food Nutr 17, 263269.
12. Nevo (2011) Dutch Food Composition Database. The Hague: Stichting Nevo.
13. Streppel, MT, De Vries, JH, Meijboom, S, et al. (2013) Relative validity of the food frequency questionnaire used to assess dietary intake in the Leiden Longevity Study. Nutr J 12, 7582.
14. Siebelink, E, Geelen, A & De Vries, JHM (2011) Self-reported energy intake by FFQ compared with actual energy intake to maintain body weight in 516 adults. Br J Nutr 106, 274281.
15. Conway, JM, Ingwersen, LA, Vinyard, BT, et al. (2003) Effectiveness of the US Department of Agriculture 5-step multiple-pass method in assessing food intake in obese and nonobese women. Am J Clin Nutr 77, 11711178.
16. Donders-Engelen, M & van der Heijden, L (2003) Maten, gewichten en codenummers 2003. Wageningen: Wageningen UR, Vakgroep Humane Voeding.
17. Hambleton, LG & Noel, RJ (1975) Protein analysis of feed, using a block digestion. J Assoc Off Anal Chem 58, 143145.
18. Jones, DB (1941) Factors for Converting Percentages of Nitrogen in Foods and Feeds Into Percentages of Proteins . Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture.
19. Bingham, SA & Cummings, JH (1985) Urine nitrogen as an independent validatory measure of dietary intake: A study of nitrogen balance in individuals consuming their normal diet. Am J Clin Nutr 42, 12761289.
20. Freisling, H, Van Bakel, MME, Biessy, C, et al. (2012) Dietary reporting errors on 24 h recalls and dietary questionnaires are associated with BMI across six European countries as evaluated with recovery biomarkers for protein and potassium intake. Br J Nutr 107, 910920.
21. Holbrook, JT, Patterson, KY & Bodner, JE (1984) Sodium and potassium intake and balance in adults consuming self-selected diets. Am J Clin Nutr 40, 786793.
22. Jakobsen, J, Ovesen, L, Fagt, S, et al. (1997) Para-aminobenzoic acid used as a marker for completeness of 24 hour urine: Assessment of control limits for a specific HPLC method. Eur J Clin Nutr 51, 514519.
23. Richardson, S & Gilks, WR (1993) A Bayesian approach to measurement error problems in epidemiology using conditional independence models. Am J Epidemiol 138, 430442.
24. Subar, AF, Midthune, D, Tasevska, N, et al. (2013) Checking for completeness of 24-h urine collection using para-amino benzoic acid not necessary in the Observing Protein and Energy Nutrition study. Eur J Clin Nutr 67, 863867.
25. Freedman, LS, Commins, JM, Moler, JE, et al. (2014) Pooled results from 5 validation studies of dietary self-report instruments using recovery biomarkers for energy and protein intake. Am J Epidemiol 180, 172188.
26. Prentice, RL & Huang, Y (2011) Measurement error modeling and nutritional epidemiology association analyses. Can J Stat 39, 498509.
27. Champagne, CM & Cash, KC (2013) Assessment of salt intake: how accurate is it? Proc Nutr Soc 72, 342347.
28. Ma, Y, Olendzki, BC, Li, W, et al. (2006) Seasonal variation in food intake, physical activity, and body weight in a predominantly overweight population. Eur J Clin Nutr 60, 519528.
29. van Staveren, WA, Deurenberg, P, Bureman, J, et al. (1986) Seasonal variation in food intake, pattern of physical activity and change in body weight in a group of young adult Dutch women consuming self-selected diets. Int J Obes 10, 133145.
30. Wong, MY, Day, NE, Bashir, SA, et al. (1999) Measurement error in epidemiology: The design of validation studies I: univariate situation. Stat Med 18, 28152829.

Keywords

Comparison of duplicate portion and 24 h recall as reference methods for validating a FFQ using urinary markers as the estimate of true intake

  • Laura Trijsburg (a1), Jeanne H. M. de Vries (a1), Hendriek C. Boshuizen (a1) (a2), Paul J. M. Hulshof (a1), Peter C. H. Hollman (a1), Pieter van 't Veer (a1) and Anouk Geelen (a1)...

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed