Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Information:

  • Access
  • Cited by 34

Actions:

      • 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.

        Dietary assessment methods for intakes of iron, calcium, selenium, zinc and iodine
        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.

        Dietary assessment methods for intakes of iron, calcium, selenium, zinc and iodine
        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.

        Dietary assessment methods for intakes of iron, calcium, selenium, zinc and iodine
        Available formats
        ×
Export citation

Abstract

The EURopean micronutrient RECommendations Aligned (EURRECA) Network of Excellence is working towards developing aligned micronutrient recommendations across Europe. The purpose of the present study was to conduct a review of methods used in validation studies carried out in adults assessing dietary intake of EURRECA priority minerals. A search strategy and inclusion criteria were defined and a scoring system was developed to rate the quality of each validation study that produced a quality index with possible scores obtained ranging from 0·5 to 7. A MEDLINE and EMBASE literature review was conducted. Articles/validation studies meeting the inclusion criteria included: 79/88 for Fe; 95/104 for Ca; 13/15 for Se; 29/30 for Zn; 7/9 for iodine. The most frequently used method to ascertain dietary intake was the Food Frequency Questionnaire (FFQ), whereas dietary records (DR) and 24 h recalls were the most used reference methods. The correlation coefficients (CC) between study mineral intakes estimated by FFQ and the reference method were weighted according to the study's quality index and obtained acceptable to good ratings, ranging from 0·36 to 0·60 when the reference method was DR and from 0·41 to 0·58 when the reference was 24 h recalls. A minority of studies (n 9) used biomarkers for validation and among these, five included iodine obtaining a CC of 0·47. The FFQ was seen as a valid method for assessing mineral intake, particularly for Ca and, to a lower extent, for iodine and Zn. Se and Fe showed only acceptable correlations. The present review provides new insights regarding the characteristics that assessment methods for dietary mineral intakes should fulfil.

Although various methods exist for estimating food and nutrient intake, not one of them is ideal. Identifying the best method of micronutrient intake assessment constitutes an important challenge for nutritional epidemiology. The role of diet and its association with the prevention and treatment of chronic diseases is well documented in the literature. However, assurance of a dietary instrument's ability to adequately assess intake remains a daunting task, primarily due to measurement errors and inter- and intraindividual variability of dietary intake(13).

The Food Frequency Questionnaire (FFQ) is commonly used in nutritional epidemiology, as it presents considerable advantages in terms of practicality and economy. However, the utility of FFQ may be limited due to poor design and inappropriate application(15). What is more, all other intake methods, such as dietary records (DR) and 24 h recalls (24HR), that are also utilised in epidemiological studies present limitations as well(3).

Validation studies measure the degree of association between a given intake method as compared with a reference method or ‘more accurate’ gold standard for intake assessment(4, 6, 7). The overriding concern for validation studies is to avoid flawed designs, especially in the choice of a method, which could lead to erroneous results and interpretations. In light of this, quality criteria are critically needed to assess the robustness of validation studies and their design.

The present work was conducted within the context of Research Activity 1.1, ‘Intake methods’ of the European Community's ‘EURopean micronutrient RECommendations Aligned (EURRECA)’ Network of Excellence, whose aim is to harmonise nutrient recommendations across Europe(8). Systematic literature reviews were carried out to identify the best methods for assessing vitamin and mineral intake in the general population as well as in targeted groups with potential for higher nutritional risk.

The present article summarises the review of the literature targeting studies that validated the intake of EURRECA priority minerals: Fe; Ca; Se; Zn; iodine, with the purpose of ascertaining the most accurate method to assess mineral intake in the adult population.

Materials and methods

A MEDLINE and EMBASE search was conducted to identify validation studies on mineral intake assessment that were carried out between July 2007 and March 2008. The procedure for the identification and selection of articles incorporated the following three steps:

The first phase consisted of conducting a general and then a specific search.

The general search strategy was applied in all the reviews carried out as part of the Research Activity 1.1 on addressing intake validation methods. This did not specify study nutrients or target population groups. The search terms included: MeSH nutrient terms (‘nutritional assessment’, ‘diet’, ‘nutritional status’, ‘dietary intake’ or ‘food intake’); validity terms (‘validity’, ‘validation study’, ‘reproducibility’, ‘replication study’, ‘correlation coefficient’ or ‘correlation study’); human studies.

A mineral-specific search was conducted independent of the general search in the same databases applying the following terms: MeSH nutrient terms (Fe, Ca, Se, Zn, iodine and synonyms); intake terms (intake* or diet).

The second phase included the initial selection of articles based on the application of exclusion criteria. Titles and abstracts of the articles identified in the search were read by two independent reviewers. Articles were excluded only when both agreed that title/abstract met the given exclusion criteria. When a title/abstract could not be rejected with certainty, the full text of the article was obtained and further evaluated. The following exclusion criteria were applied:

  1. (1) Articles exclusively assessing macronutrients and/or energy;

  2. (2) Studies describing the content of foods in nutrients, additives or contaminants;

  3. (3) Studies in diseased or institutionalised persons exclusively;

  4. (4) Articles presenting reference values for food consumption, nutrient intake, biochemical markers and anthropometric measurements;

  5. (5) Articles establishing associations between food consumption, nutrient intake, biological variables, biochemical markers and anthropometric measurements;

  6. (6) Studies relating diseases to food consumption or nutrient intake;

  7. (7) Intervention studies and other therapeutic studies with nutrients or drugs related to the metabolism of these nutrients;

  8. (8) Calibration studies and those discussing statistical methods;

  9. (9) Studies evaluating physiological effects of foods and nutrients in relation to their genetic determinants;

  10. (10) Studies in animals;

  11. (11) Studies in languages other than English, Spanish, French, Italian, Portuguese and German and those without abstracts in PubMed.

The third phase consisted of the final selection with one researcher applying the following inclusion criteria to articles from phase 2:

  1. (1) Studies regarding validation results for mineral intake (those articles analysing only reproducibility or supplement use were excluded from the present analysis).

  2. (2) Studies based on the adult population (those articles only evaluating children, adolescents, pregnant women or the elderly were excluded from the present analysis).

The full texts of all articles were screened for either definitive exclusion or data extraction by a different reviewer from the one involved in phase 2 of the selection process, with independent duplicate assessment of a random sample of 25 % by yet another reviewer. Where any two reviewers disagreed, the study was discussed and a consensus decision was reached where possible. If this was not possible then a third reviewer was asked to arbitrate.

The articles included in the present review were grouped into the following categories according to the reference method used and time frame applied:

  • Long-term intake. If the reference method was a dietary assessment method (including 24HR and estimated and weighed DR) applied for 7 or more days.

  • Short-term intake. If the reference method was a dietary assessment method (including 24HR and estimated and weighed DR) applied for < 7 days.

  • Biomarker. If the reference method was a biomarker.

To assess the quality of the different validation studies, a quality score system was developed(9). The studies were scored taking into consideration their sample size, the statistics used in analysis, data collection procedures and the inclusion or not of seasonality and mineral supplement use (Table 1). The correlation coefficients (CC) obtained for each study were weighted according to the article's quality index, with the aim of being able to compare results with those from other studies. The average weighted CC per study mineral was calculated, based on the weighted CC for each mineral, categorised by studies using the same method of mineral intake assessment and reference. This allowed for the comparison among different validation methods assessed over various studies for a given mineral(9).

Table 1 Quality criteria to score validation studies on micronutrient intake

SES, Socioeconomic status.

Results

In phase 1 of the search, 5476 studies were identified. After applying exclusion criteria, 391 articles were selected, of which a final selection of 109 articles were identified after applying inclusion criteria. The number of articles analysing each of the minerals under study in the present review were: 79 for Fe (88 validation studies); 95 for Ca (104 validation studies); 13 for Se (15 validation studies); 29 articles for Zn (30 validation studies) and 7 for iodine (9 validation studies). A single article could include the validation of various minerals as well as different questionnaires or reference methods for the same mineral.

Most of the validation studies selected in the present review (all except ten) utilised FFQ as the intake assessment method and DR or 24HR as the reference method. Table 2 describes the numbers of studies employing FFQ for each mineral and the methods used as gold standards (DR or 24HR) for their validation. Tables 3–6 describe the studies included in the review according to the methods used: Table 3 included FFQ v. DR, Table 4 included FFQ v. 24HR, Table 5 included FFQ v. biomarkers; Table 6 included other methods. After categorising studies based on the type of reference method utilised, the weighted mean of the CC was calculated using the quality index value of each study(9). Table 7 and Fig. 1 summarise the study quality-weighted mean CC for each mineral, which also took into consideration whether the application of the reference method was short or long term. Mean CC for the FFQ ranged from 0·36 for Se to 0·60 for iodine when the reference method was the DR and from 0·41 for Zn to 0·58 for Ca when the reference method was 24HR. When using biomarkers as the reference method, only iodine was used to calculate the average CC (mean CC was 0·47), as both Se and Fe had only two studies each for their validation (Table 5). Table 6 shows validation studies that used other methods (for assessing intake and/or the reference method) than those previously classified in Tables 3–5. The CC obtained by other methods ranged from 0·48 for Fe to 0·53 for Ca. Most of the mean CC obtained in the present review were >0·40, reflecting an acceptable level of correlation.

Table 2 Distribution of studies validating FFQ according to the reference method utilised and study mineral

Table 3 Description of validation studies that use Food Frequency Questionnaire to assess iron, calcium, selenium, zinc and iodine intake and dietary records as the reference method

M, men; W, women; DR, dietary record; FFQ1/FFQ2 Repetition of the same questionnaire.

* Spearman crude.

Pearson crude.

Deattenuated and energy adjusted.

§ Spearman energy-adjusted.

Pearson energy-adjusted.

Intraclass and energy-adjusted.

** Triads method.

†† Low food diversity.

‡‡ High food diversity.

§§ Intraclass correlation coefficients.

∥∥ Pearson age, sex and energy-adjusted.

Table 4 Description of validation studies that use Food Frequency Questionnaire to assess iron, calcium, selenium, zinc and iodine intake and 24 h recalls as the reference method

W, women; M, men; FFQ1/FFQ2 Repetition of the same questionnaire.

* Deattenuated and energy-adjusted.

Pearson crude.

Pearson energy-adjusted.

§ Spearman crude.

Table 5 Description of validation studies on iron, selenium or iodine intake using biomarkers as the reference method

W, women; M, men; DR, dietary records.

* Spearman energy-adjusted.

Pearson crude.

Spearman crude.

Table 6 Description of studies validating intakes of iron, calcium and selenium that used methods for assessing intake/reference methods other than standard FFQ v. Dietary Records or 24 h recalls or biomarkers as the reference method

W, women; M, men; DR, dietary record.

* Spearman crude.

Pearson crude.

Intraclass and energy-adjusted.

§ Intraclass correlation coefficients.

Pearson energy-adjusted.

Pearson age, sex and energy-adjusted.

Table 7 Mean of weighted correlation coefficients according to reference method used in FFQ validation studies for each study mineral

* Only two studies.

Only one study.

Fig. 1 Mean of quality-weighted correlation coefficients by reference method used in FFQ validation studies for each study mineral. , Iron; , calcium; -▲-, selenium; -●-, zinc; -■-, iodine.

The detailed descriptions of the studies included in the present review (Tables 3–6) reflect: the authors and year of publication; the population size (ranging from 10 to 2265 people); the age and sex (majority females); the characteristics of the FFQ (mode of administration, number of food items included in the questionnaire and reference period); the characteristics of the reference method (information on total number of days over which the reference method was applied); the use or not of supplements; the mineral which was analysed; the CC of each mineral (globally or by sex, and differentiated by FFQ1 and FFQ2 when the same FFQ was administered two times); the quality index. Tables 3–5 refer to a specific intake instrument that was applied as the reference method, when compared with the FFQ (Table 3 refers to dietary record; Table 4 refers to 24HR; Table 5 refers to biomarkers), Table 6 refers to a combination of other methods.

FFQ v. dietary record

The dietary record (DR) was used as the reference method in most of the validation studies included in the present review (Table 3). In the majority of cases, information regarding dietary intake was collected through a self-administered FFQ (79 %) to assess dietary intake in the previous year (57 %). The number of food items included in the questionnaire ranged from 10 to 630. The weighted CC varied slightly according to the number of food items ( < 100 or ≥ 100 food items) included in the FFQ (Fig. 2), being somewhat higher for FFQ with ≥ 100 food items. In the case of iodine, there were no articles identified in the present review having more than 100 food items.

Fig. 2 Mean quality-weighted correlation coefficient of validation studies using FFQ to assess mineral intake and dietary records as the reference method by study mineral and number of FFQ food items. , Foods in the FFQ>100; ■, foods in the FFQ < 100.

Very few studies included the assessment of intake from mineral supplements in their analyses (32 %). However, no large differences were noted in the mean of weighted CC for the studies that did or did not include such information (Fig. 3). In this figure, evaluations of Se and iodine that assessed mineral supplement intake were not included due to the small number of studies identified for each mineral.

Fig. 3 Mean quality-weighted correlation coefficient of validation studies using FFQ to assess mineral intake and dietary records as the reference method by study mineral and mineral supplement intakes. , With supplement; ■, no supplement.

The mean CC of Zn, Fe and Se were higher when the reference method was a weighed DR compared with the use of an estimated DR. In contrast, mean CC for Ca were slightly higher with estimated DR than with weighed DR (Fig. 4). For iodine only, the mean CC of estimated DR was calculated as there were no articles applying a weighed DR.

Fig. 4 Mean quality-weighted correlation coefficient of validation studies using FFQ to assess mineral intake and weighed or estimated dietary records (DR) as the reference method by study mineral. , DR estimated; ■, DR weighed.

Most of the DR used as reference methods collected dietary intake for 7 d or more (long-term intake; 65 % of the studies). Table 7 shows the differences for mean CC according to the number of days included in the DR (long- and short-term intake). Zn, Fe and Se (the latter with only two studies) presented higher mean CC with long-term rather than short-term application. There were no differences observed in the mean coefficient for Ca in both long- or short-term administration. Iodine was excluded from this analysis, as there was only one article in the long-term category.

FFQ v. 24 h recall

When the reference method was the 24HR, the information was more frequently collected through short-term (62 %) instead of long-term administration (Table 4). Differences in mean CC were observed for Fe (higher value with short-term application) but not for Ca and Zn (Table 7). The interview-administered FFQ (54 %) was more frequently applied than self-administered questionnaires. The number of food items included in the FFQ ranged from 52 to 222. Fig. 5 shows the mean CC according to the number of food items included in the FFQ; slightly higher values were observed for Ca and Zn when the number of foods in the FFQ was < 100.

Fig. 5 Mean quality-weighted correlation coefficient of validation studies using FFQ to assess mineral intake and 24 h recalls as the reference method by study mineral and number of FFQ food items. , Foods in the FFQ>100; ■, foods in the FFQ < 100.

The proportion of studies in this reference category including information about mineral supplements (31 %) was similar to those using DR as the gold standard. Mean CC of Fe, Ca and Zn were higher without supplements (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6 Mean quality-weighted correlation coefficient of validation studies using FFQ to assess mineral intake and 24 h recalls as the reference method by study mineral and mineral supplement intakes. , With supplement; ■, no supplement.

Biomarkers as reference method

The use of biomarkers as the reference methods was less frequently observed (Table 5). A total of nine validation studies utilised biomarkers; five for iodine and two each for Se and Fe. Five studies utilised FFQ to assess intake, three applied four weighed DR and one administered two 24HR. The mean CC for iodine when compared with biomarkers was 0·47, showing an acceptable correlation of >0·4. Urinary iodine excretion (UIE) was used as the biomarker for iodine in all the articles. Two studies used serum and erythrocyte Se as the reference method for Se; and in two others, Fe intake was compared with serum ferritin.

Other methods

The classification of the others category included studies that employed the use of a diet assessment instrument that was not a ‘standard’ FFQ and/or non-standard reference methods (i.e. not applying DR, 24HR or biomarkers; Table 6). An example of studies in this category are those that utilised FFQ that were validated by weighed DR but used PETRA scales instead of the usual method of having subjects weigh food with subsequent recording in the DR. Such scales are accurate to ± 1 g and automatically record verbal descriptions and weights of food on a dual track cassette, thus, avoiding the necessity for subjects to keep written records. Moreover, these scales do not disclose the weights of foods eaten by the subject. Twenty validation studies comprised the others category: all of them except one analysed Ca; eight Fe; two Se; one Zn. Four of the studies in this category included the intake of mineral supplements in their analyses. When we compared the mean weighted CC for each mineral, a classification of ‘good’ was obtained for Ca (0·54) and Se (0·52, but only with two studies) and acceptable for Fe (0·48). Zn was excluded from the analysis as only one article was identified in the present review in the category of other methods.

Discussion

In the validation of methods used for intake assessment, it is essential to verify if the method of interest approximates ‘true intake’ to the greatest extent possible. All intake methods present limitations, and as such, it is necessary to analyse bias or variables that could lead to misleading results. Therefore, a large number of possible study design errors should be controlled, as they can cause bias in validation studies. To deal with the quality of micronutrient intake validation, a quality index was developed, which considered important points for design of the validation studies such as: homogeneity of the sample; sample size; statistical analysis; interviewer administration; seasonality; supplement use (Table 1)(9). The quality index was the total sum of the points reaching a maximum of 7 points. In the present review, the quality index score ranged from 3·2 for other methods and DR to 3·5 for 24HR. When we compare this to the analysis conducted on vitamins, the quality index scores were of the same magnitude(10). Despite the fact that the quality index scores obtained in the present review did not by any means approximate the maximum score, this analysis shows the importance of applying such an index, which can be applied for quality control and guidance in the design of validation studies.

In general, FFQ validation is usually conducted by comparing data obtained with those derived from DR or 24HR. The present review shows that FFQ were the most commonly used method for assessing dietary mineral intake in epidemiological studies. The same was found in the analyses of the vitamin reviews(10) as well as other review articles(5). The reason for the popularity of this intake assessment method can be found in its low cost of administration as compared with other instruments such as food records or recalls. Brown(11), in 2006, wrote that the cost:benefit ratio should be taken into consideration when identifying instruments for use in research. The main benefit of FFQ administration is its ability to characterise usual diet in the past over a period of a year, months or weeks. However, there may be certain biases such as memory recall, number of food items, portion size and interpretation(6, 12), which constitute factors that need to be addressed in FFQ development and application.

With regard to FFQ validation, the dietary record is one of the most used correlation methods as it has fewer correlation errors as compared with other reference methods(6). This has been attributed to the fact that both methods employ different modes to evaluate intake. The dietary record does not rely on memory, whereas the FFQ does and also employs cognitive processes for calculating the frequency of intake.

Currently, other methods (apart from the FFQ) have been utilised for intake assessment, which have also been validated. These methods aim to decrease costs and time taken to conduct an interview. As such, this accounts for the reason that the vast majority of FFQ tend to be self-administered. However, the data can be incomplete or have unlikely responses that can contribute to misleading results due to a lack of precision or large differences in intraindividual variation. This can be reduced by employing interview (face to face) administration to allow for immediate verification in data collection(5).

The periods of time that are referred to in evaluating intake by FFQ or reference methods are essential for validation. It should be defined in the objectives of the study(13). Generally, the FFQ is developed to assess the previous year, and the reference method assesses another time period. For this reason, it is necessary to conduct multiple DR and recalls to cover the same period as that covered by the FFQ. Seasonality should be considered in both methods, especially for micronutrients, and including minerals. Food availability throughout the period of 1 year is highly variable, as intake of fruits, vegetables, pulses, grains and fish, among others, varies from season to season. We have found better correlations of dietary intake in long-term (more than 7 d) assessment periods using DR for Zn and Fe. However, the dietary recall for Fe was slightly better correlated with short-term administration and obtained somewhat higher values with long-term administration for Zn. For Ca, no differences were seen in CC for either short- or long-term administration by records or recalls.

The number of food items to include in an FFQ should be based on the objectives of a given study(6). Typically, FFQ may contain 100 or more food items. If an investigator is interested in estimating the intake of a single nutrient or certain food groups, the food list can be reduced to a range of 15–30 foods; however, this limited food list needs to be measured previously(14). Reducing the number of food items is taken into consideration to avoid lengthy FFQ(5) and to avoid fatigue response. In the present review, for studies validating FFQ with DR, Fe, Ca and Se had better correlations with a longer food list. When 24HR were administered, Ca and Zn showed better correlations with reference methods when compared against short FFQ food lists ( < 100 food items). Fe was better correlated in studies using longer food lists and employing DR as the reference method, but no changes were observed with recalls. The primary role of the food list is to include the principal sources of nutrients deemed of interest to the study and the frequency of their consumption. With respect to minerals, there are many food sources of these nutrients that may be better accounted for by using a longer list.

Supplement use should be evaluated in an interview, specifying the type and dosage consumed. Zn, in particular, obtained very good correlations with DR when supplementation was included as part of intake assessment. In the present review, many validation studies did not take supplementation into account. Similar results were observed in the review on vitamins(10). However, supplement use should be included as an ‘additional’ question(5). In any case, it is important that both the validating questionnaire and the reference method similarly include or exclude supplements. However, if biomarkers are used, which are considered as markers that assess intake independent of measured intake, there will probably be a difference in correlation between the methods according to the inclusion or not of supplements in the validating questionnaire. In the present review, biomarkers v. FFQ were considered only for iodine, as there was a limited number of studies for Fe and Se, as well as a currently existing lack of adequate biomarkers for these minerals. As such, three studies took supplementation into consideration and two studies did not, showing better weighted CC for the studies assessing supplement use (0·55) than those that excluded this information (0·31).

The present study showed that validation studies for iodine using biomarkers as the reference method was acceptable (weighted CC was more than 0·40); there were five studies that used UIE. The review of vitamins showed that studies using biomarkers to validate intake presented low correlations(10); however, the review of validation of n-3 fatty acid intake using biomarkers (total n-3 fatty acids, DHA and EPA) presented acceptable correlations(15), which is similar to the results in the present study. For each Se and Fe, there were only two studies; therefore, average CC could not be calculated. This shows the need for further research that employs biomarkers to validate the intake of minerals. Moreover, despite the fact that UIE in 24 h urine samples is considered the best method to assess iodine intake, estimates show high intraindividual variability, and therefore, its use as a marker for usual intake is compromised. Brug et al. (16) reported the estimates of variance components and reproducibility of UIE. They found that 0·45 was due to intraindividual and 0·06 to interindividual variation. Correlations between consecutive UIE were 0·21 for men and 0·27 for women. It is, therefore, crucial to develop additional biomarkers for usual mineral intake and status that take into account genetic and other individual variability.

DR were the most commonly used reference method to validate mineral intakes measured by FFQ. We found good and acceptable ranges of mean CC with recalls and records for all minerals. The greatest difference in CC was seen for Se, which was considerably higher for recalls (0·57) than records (0·36). This could in part be explained by the limited number of studies for this mineral: only one article applied recalls and nine used DR as the reference method.

In the classification of other methods, more articles addressed Ca and Fe assessment as compared with other minerals included in the present review. Ca and Fe presented good and acceptable correlations, respectively. Other methods, consisting of those that deviate from the traditional FFQ v. DR, 24HR or biomarker validation, reflect the tendency of studies whose focus is on one particular mineral or certain food groups or those employing novel methods to conduct diet assessments. However, further research on the validation of methods applying different intake instruments is required.

The aim of the present article was to review the validity of methods used to measure mineral intake. The present review showed that FFQ was the main intake method utilised. Most studies presented CC ranging from 0·30 to 0·60. The summary of the mean weighted correlations obtained by the EURRECA quality scoring system indicated that there were no differences in using FFQ for Ca when compared with records, recalls or other methods as the reference standard. All the reference methods obtained a good classification of the mean weighted CC (Table 8). For Fe and Zn, records, recalls and other validation methods had an acceptable correlation with FFQ, and for iodine, records, recalls and biomarker validation showed acceptable CC with FFQ. For Se, records had acceptable correlation. The FFQ was seen as a valid method for assessing mineral intake, particularly for Ca and, to a lower extent, for iodine and Zn. Moreover, methods evaluating Se and Fe intake obtained only acceptable correlations. Including the assessment of supplements increased correlations for Zn, but not for Ca and Fe, and the number of items of FFQ (n>100) also increased validity for Fe, Ca and Se. Finally, using weighed DR as the reference method improves the correlation with FFQ for Zn, Se and Fe, but not for Ca, as compared with estimated DR. The present review showed that an FFQ is an acceptable tool for assessing mineral intake, although certain aspects need to be considered to improve its performance.

Table 8 Classification of mineral intake validation studies based on mean weighted correlation coefficients obtained from each reference method used in validating intakes of iron, calcium, selenium, zinc and iodine

* Only one study.

Acknowledgements

The studies reported herein have been carried out within the EURRECA Network of Excellence (www.eurreca.org), financially supported by the Commission of the European Communities, specifically Research, Technology and Development Programme Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources, within the Sixth Framework Programme, contract no. 036196. This report does not necessarily reflect the commission's views or its future policy in this area. Author contribution: L. S.-M. was responsible for designing search strategies, retrieving references, critical reading and evaluation, and for writing of the article; K. P. participated in article retrieval, data extraction and supervised the edition of the article, which has been read and approved by all the authors. J. D.-A., A. S.-V., A. O.-A. and P. H.-S. participated in designing search strategies and approved the final version of the article, L. R.-B. participated in writing and approval of the final draft. The authors have no conflict of interests to report.

References

1Willett, WC (editor) (1998) Nutritional Epidemiology, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
2Gibson, RS (2005) Principles of Nutrition Assessment, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
3Serra Majem, L & Aranceta Bartrina, J (editors) (2006) Nutrición y Salud Pública. Métodos, Bases científicas y Aplicaciones (Public Health Nutrition. Evidence Base and Applications), 2nd ed.Barcelona: Masson.
4Boucher, B, Cotterchio, M, Kreiger, N, et al. (2006) Validity and reliability of the block98 food-frequency questionnaire in a sample of Canadian women. Public Health Nutr 9, 8493.
5Cade, J, Thompson, R, Burley, V, et al. (2001) Development validation and utilisation of a food-frequency questionnaire – a review. Public Health Nutr 5, 567587.
6Willett, W & Lenart, E (1998) Reproducibility and validity of food frequency questionnaires. In Nutritional Epidemiology, 2nd ed., pp. 101147 [Willett, WC, editor]. New York: Oxford University Press.
7Vioque, L (2006) Validez de la evaluación de la ingesta dietética (Validation of dietary intake evaluation). In Nutrición y Salud Pública. Métodos, Bases científicas y Aplicaciones (Public Health Nutrition. Evidence Base and Applications), 2nd ed., pp. 199210 [Serra Majem, L and Aranceta Bartrina, J, editors]. Barcelona: Masson.
8Ashwell, M, Lambert, JP, Alles, MS, et al. (2008) How we will produce the evidence-based EURRECA toolkit to support nutrition and food policy. Eur J Nutr 47, Suppl. 1, 216.
9Serra-Majem, L, Andersen, LF, Henríquez- Sánchez, P, et al. (2009) Evaluating the quality of dietary intake validation studies. Br J Nutr 102, Suppl. 1, S3S9.
10Henríquez-Sánchez, P, Sánchez-Villegas, A, Doreste-Alonso, J, et al. (2009) Dietary Assessment Methods for micronutrient intake: a systematic review on vitamins. Br J Nutr 102, Suppl. 1, S10S37.
11Brown, D (2006) Do food frequency questionnaires have too many limitations? J Am Diet Assoc 106, 15411542.
12Bingham, SA & Nelson, M (1991) Assessment of food consumption and nutrient intake. In Design Concepts in Nutritional Epidemiology, pp. 153191 [Margetts, BM and Nelson, M, editors]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13Nelson, M (1991) The validation of dietary questionnaire. In Design Concepts in Nutritional Epidemiology, pp. 266296 [Margetts, BM and Nelson, M, editors]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14Thompson, FE & Subar, AF (2008) Dietary assessment methodology. In Nutrition in the Prevention and Treatment of Disease, 2nd ed., pp. 339 [Coulston, AM and Boushey, CJ, editors]. Burlington: Academic Press.
15Øverby, NC, Serra-Majem, L & Frost Andersen, L (2009) Dietary assessment methods (DAME) for omega-3 fatty acids: a systematic review. Br J Nutr (In the Press).
16Brug, J, Löwik, MR, van Binsbergen, JJ, et al. (1992) Indicators of iodine status among adults. Dutch Nutrition Surveillance System. Ann Nutr Metab 36, 129134.
17Andersen, LF, Solvoll, K, Johansson, LR, et al. (1999) Evaluation of a food frequency questionnaire with weighed records, fatty acids, and alpha-tocopherol in adipose tissue and serum. Am J Epidemiol 150, 7587.
18Bautista, L, Herrán, O, Pryer, J, et al. (2005) Development and simulated validation of a food-frequency questionnaire for the Colombian population. Public Health Nutr 8, 181188.
19Blalock, SJ, Norton, LL, Patel, LA, et al. (2003) Development and assessment of a short instrument for assessing dietary intakes for calcium and vitamin D. J Am Pharm Assoc 43, 685693.
20Block, G, Woods, M, Potosky, A, et al. (1990) Validation of a self-administered diet history questionnaire using multiple diet record. J Clin Epidemiol 43, 13271335.
21Block, G, Thompson, FE, Hartman, AM, et al. (1992) Comparison of two dietary questionnaires validated against multiple dietary records collected during a 1-year period. J Am Diet Assoc 92, 686693.
22Bonifacj, C, Gerber, M, Scali, J, et al. (1997) Comparison of dietary assessment methods in a southern French population: use of weighed records, estimated diet records and a food-frequency questionnaire. Eur J Clin Nutr 51, 217231.
23Brunner, E, Stallone, D, Juneja, M, et al. (2001) Dietary assessment in Whitehall II: comparison of 7 d diet diary and food-frequency questionnaire and validity against biomarkers. Br J Nutr 86, 405414.
24Cardoso, MA, Kida, AA, Tomita, LY, et al. (2001) Reproducibility and validity of a food frequency questionnaire among women of a Japanese ancestry living in Brazil. Nutr Res 21, 725733.
25Chen, Y, Ahsan, H, Parvez, F, et al. (2004) Validity of a food-frequency questionnaire for a large prospective cohort study in Bangladesh. Br J Nutr 92, 851859.
26Date, CH, Fukui, M, Yamamoto, A, et al. (2005) Reproducibility and validity of a self-administered food frequency questionnaire used in the JACC study. J Epidemiol 15, Suppl. 1, S9S23.
27Decarli, A, Franceschi, S, Ferraroni, M, et al. (1996) Validation of a food-frequency questionnaire to assess dietary intakes in cancer studies in Italy. Results for specific nutrients. Ann Epidemiol 6, 110118.
28Egami, I, Wakai, K, Kato, K, et al. (1999) A simple food frequency questionnaire for Japanese diet-Part II. Reproducibility and validity for nutrient intakes. J Epidemiol 9, 227234.
29Engle, A, Lunn, LL, Koury, K, et al. (1990) Reproducibility and comparability of a computerized self-administered food frequency questionnaire. Nutr Cancer 13, 281292.
30Friis, S, Krüger Kjaer, S, Stripp, C, et al. (1997) Reproducibility and relative validity of a self-administered semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire applied to younger women. J Clin Epidemiol 50, 303311.
31Heath, AL, Skeaff, CM & Gibson, RS (2000) The relative validity of a computerized food frequency questionnaire for estimating intake of dietary iron and its absorption modifiers. Eur J Clin Nutr 54, 592599.
32Heath, AL, Roe, MA, Oyston, SL, et al. (2005) Meal-based intake assessment tool: relative validity when determining dietary intake of Fe and Zn and selected absorption modifiers in UK men. Br J Nutr 93, 403416.
33Hodge, A, Patterson, A, Brown, WJ, et al. (2000) The Anti Cancer Council of Victoria FFQ: relative validity of nutrient intakes compared with weighed food records in young to middle-aged women in a study of iron supplementation. Aust N Z J Public Health 24, 576583.
34Ishihara, J, Sobue, T, Yamamoto, S, et al. (2003) Validity and reproducibility of a self-administered food frequency questionnaire in the JPC Study Cohort II: study design, participant profile and results in comparison with Cohort I. J Epidemiol 13, Suppl. 1, S134S147.
35Jain, M, Howe, GR & Rohan, T (1996) Dietary assessment in epidemiology: comparison of a food frequency and diet history questionnaire with a 7-day food record. Am J Epidemiol 143, 953960.
36Jain, M & McLaughlin, J (2000) Validity of nutrient estimates by food frequency questionnaires based either on exact frequencies or categories. Ann Epidemiol 10, 354360.
37Karita, K, Sasaki, S, Ishihara, J, et al. (2003) Validity of a self-administered food frequency questionnaire used in the 5-year follow-up survey of the JPHC Study to assess selenium intake: comparison with dietary records and blood levels. J Epidemiol 13, S92S97.
38Kim, J, Chan, MM & Shore, RE (2002) Development and validation of a food frequency questionnaire for Korean Americans. Int J Food Sci Nutr 53, 129142.
39Lee, MS, Pan, WH, Liu, KL, et al. (2006) Reproducibility and validity of a Chinese food frequency questionnaire used in Taiwan. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr 15, 161169.
40MacIntyre, UE, Venter, CS & Vorster, HH (2001) A culture-sensitive quantitative food frequency questionnaire used in a African population: 2. Relative validation by 7-day weighed records and biomarkers. Public Health Nutr 4, 6371.
41Männistö, S, Virtanen, M, Mikkonen, T, et al. (1996) Reproducibility and validity of a food frequency questionnaire in a case–control study on breast cancer. J Clin Epidemiol 49, 401409.
42Marks, GC, Hughes, MC & van der Pols, JC (2006) The effect of personal characteristics on the validity of nutrient intake estimates using a food-frequency questionnaire. Public Health Nutr 9, 394402.
43McKeown, NM, Day, NE, Welch, AA, et al. (2001) Use of biological markers to validate self-reported dietary intake in a random sample of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer United Kingdom Norfolk cohort. Am J Clin Nutr 74, 188196.
44Montomoli, M, Gonnelli, S, Giacchi, M, et al. (2002) Validation of a food frequency questionnaire for nutritional calcium intake assessment in Italian women. Eur J Clin Nutr 56, 2130.
45Nagata, C, Ohwaki, A, Kurisu, Y, et al. (1998) Food diversity and validity of semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire. J Epidemiol 8, 297301.
46Ogawa, K, Tsubono, Y, Nishino, Y, et al. (2003) Validation of a food frequency questionnaire for cohort studies in rural Japan. Public Health Nutr 6, 147157.
47Patterson, RE, Kristal, AR, Tinker, LF, et al. (1999) Measurement characteristics of the Women's Health Initiative food frequency questionnaire. Ann Epidemiol 9, 178187.
48Pietinen, P, Hartman, AM, Haapa, E, et al. (1998a) Reproducibility and validity of dietary assessment instruments. I. A self-administered food use questionnaire with a portion size picture booklet. Am J Epidemiol 128, 655666.
49Pietinen, P, Hartman, AM, Haapa, E, et al. (1998b) Reproducibility and validity of dietary assessment instruments. II. A qualitative food frequency questionnaire. Am J Epidemiol 128, 667676.
50Potosky, AL, Block, G & Hartman, MS (1990) The apparent validity of diet questionnaires is influenced by number of diet-records days used for comparison. J Am Diet Assoc 90, 810813.
51Riboli, E, Elmståhl, S, Saracci, R, et al. (1997) The Malmö Food Study: validity of two dietary assessment methods for measuring nutrient intake. Int J Epidemiol 26, Suppl. 1, S161S173.
52Rimm, EB, Giovannucci, EL, Stampfer, MJ, et al. (1992) Reproducibility and validity of an expanded self-administered semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire among male health professionals. Am J Epidemiol 135, 11141126.
53Sebring, NG, Denkinger, BI, Menzie, CM, et al. (2007) Validation of three food frequency questionnaires to assess dietary calcium intake in adults. J Am Diet Assoc 107, 752759.
54Shimizu, H, Ohwaki, A, Kurisu, Y, et al. (1999) Validity and reproducibility of a quantitative food frequency questionnaire for a cohort study in Japan. Jpn J Clin Oncol 29, 3844.
55Tjonneland, A, Haraldsdottir, J, Overvad, K, et al. (1992) Influence of individually estimated portion size data on the validity of a semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire. Int J Epidemiol 21, 770777.
56Tokudome, S, Imaeda, N, Tokudome, Y, et al. (2001) Relative validity of a semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire versus 28 day weighed diet records in Japanese female dietitians. Eur J Clin Nutr 55, 735742.
57Tsubono, Y, Sasaki, S, Kobayashi, M, et al. (2001) Food composition and empirical weight methods in predicting nutrient intakes from food frequency questionnaire. Ann Epidemiol 11, 213218.
58Tsubono, Y, Ogawa, K, Watanabe, Y, et al. (2001) Food frequency questionnaire as a screening test. Nutr Cancer 39, 7884.
59Tsugane, S, Kobayashi, M & Sasaki, S (2003) Validation of the self-administered food frequency questionnaire used in the 5-year follow-up survey of the JPHC study cohort I: comparison with dietary records for main nutrients. J Epidemiol 13, Suppl. 1, S51S56.
60Willett, WC, Reynolds, RD, Cottrell-Hoehner, S, et al. (1987) Validation of a semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire: comparison with a 1-year diet record. J Am Diet Assoc 87, 4347.
61Baumgartner, K, Gilliland, FD, Nicholson, CS, et al. (1998) Validity and reproducibility of a food frequency questionnaire among Hispanic and non-Hispanic white women in New Mexico. Ethn Dis 8, 8192.
62Chee, WS, Suriah, AR, Zaitun, Y, et al. (2002) Dietary calcium intake in postmenopausal Malaysian women: comparison between the food frequency questionnaire and three-day food records. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr 11, 142146.
63Fregapane, G & Asensio-García, C (2000) Dietary assessment of an educated young Spanish population using a self-administered meal-based food frequency questionnaire. Eur J Epidemiol 16, 183191.
64George, GC, Milani, TJ, Hanss-Nuss, H, et al. (2004) Development and validation of a semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire for young adult women in the south western United States. Nutr Res 24, 2943.
65Goulet, J, Nadeau, G, Lapointe, A, et al. (2004) Validity and reproducibility of an interviewer-administered food frequency questionnaire for healthy French-Canadian men and women. Nutr J 13, 13.
66Hartwell, DL & Henry, CJK (2001) Comparison of a self-administered quantitative food amount frequency questionnaire with 4-day estimated food records. Int J Food Sci Nutr 52, 151159.
67Ke, L, Toshiro, T, Fengyan, S, et al. (2005) Relative validity of a semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire versus 3 day weighed diet records in middle-aged inhabitants in Chaoshan area, China. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 6, 376381.
68Kristal, AR, Feng, Z, Coates, RJ, et al. (1997) Associations of race/ethnicity education and dietary intervention with the validity and reliability of a food frequency questionnaire. Am J Epidemiol 146, 856869.
69Kumanyika, SK, Mauger, D, Mitchell, DC, et al. (2003) Relative validity of food frequency questionnaire nutrient estimates in the Black Women's Health Study. Ann Epidemiol 13, 111118.
70Longnecker, M, Lissner, L, Holden, J, et al. (1993) The reproducibility and validity of a self-administered semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire in subjects from south Dakota and Wyoming. Epidemiology 4, 356365.
71Martínez, ME, Marshall, JR, Graver, E, et al. (1999) Reliability and validity of a self-administered food frequency questionnaire in a chemoprevention trial of adenoma recurrence. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 8, 941946.
72Masson, LF, McNeill, G, Tomany, JO, et al. (2003) Statistical approaches for assessing the relative validity of a food-frequency questionnaire: use of correlation coefficients and the kappa statistic. Public Health Nutr 6, 313321.
73Moreira, P, Sampaio, D & Almeida, MD (2003) Validity assessment of a food frequency questionnaire by comparison with a 4-day diet record. Acta Med Port 16, 412420.
74Paalanen, L, Männistö, S, Virtanen, MJ, et al. (2006) Validity of a food frequency questionnaire varied by age and body mass index. J Clin Epidemiol 59, 9941001.
75Parr, CL, Barikmon, I, Torheim, LE, et al. (2002) Validation of the second version of a quantitative food-frequency questionnaire for use in Western Mali. Public Health Nutr 5, 769781.
76Rasmussen, LB, Ovesen, L, Bülow, I, et al. (2001) Evaluation of a semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire to estimate iodine intake. Eur J Clin Nutr 55, 287292.
77Sasaki, S, Yanagibori, R, Amano, K, et al. (1998) Self-administered diet history questionnaire developed for health education: a relative validation of the test-version by comparison with 3-day diet record in women. J Epidemiol 8, 203215.
78Shimizu, H, Ohwaki, A, Kurisu, Y, et al. (1999) Validity and reproducibility of a quantitative food frequency questionnaire for a cohort study in Japan. Jpn J Clin Oncol 29, 3844.
79Tokudome, S, Goto, Ch, Imaeda, N, et al. (2005) Relative validity of a short food frequency questionnaire for assessing nutrient intake versus three-day weighed diet records in middle-aged Japanese. J Epidemiol 15, 135145.
80Torheim, LE, Barikmo, I, Hatloy, A, et al. (2001) Validation of a quantitative food frequency questionnaire for use in western Mali. Public Health Nutr 4, 12671277.
81Welten, DC, Kemper, HC, Post, GB, et al. (1996) Relative validity of 16-year recall of calcium intake by a dairy questionnaire in young Dutch adults. J Nutr 126, 28432850.
82Xu, L, Porteous, JE, Phillips, MR, et al. (2000) Development and validation of a calcium intake questionnaire for postmenopausal women in China. Ann Epidemiol 10, 169175.
83Boeing, H, Bohlscheid-Thomas, S, Voss, S, et al. (1997) The relative validity of vitamin intakes derived from a food frequency questionnaire compared to 24-hour recalls and biological measurements: results from the EPIC Pilot Study in Germany. Int J Epidemiol 26, Suppl. 1, S62S90.
84Hebert, JR, Gupta, PC, Bhonsle, RB, et al. (1998) Development and testing of a quantitative food frequency questionnaire for use in Kerala, India. Public Health Nutr 1, 123130.
85Hernández-Ávila, M, Romieu, I, Parra, S, et al. (1998) Validity and reproducibility of a food frequency questionnaire to assess dietary intake of women living in Mexico City. Salud Publica Mex 40, 133140.
86Jackson, M, Walker, S, Cade, J, et al. (2001) Reproducibility and validity of a quantitative food-frequency questionnaire among Jamaicans of Africa origin. Public Health Nutr 4, 971980.
87Johansson, I, Hallmans, G, Biessy, C, et al. (2001) Validation and calibration of food-frequency questionnaire measurements in the Northern Sweden Health and Disease cohort. Public Health Nutr 5, 487496.
88Kabagambe, EK, Baylin, A, Allan, DA, et al. (2001) Application of the method of triads to evaluate the performance of food frequency questionnaires and biomarkers as indicators of long-term dietary intake. Am J Epidemiol 154, 11261135.
89Katsouyanni, K, Rimm, EB, Gnardellis, CH, et al. (1997) Reproducibility and relative validity of an extensive semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire using dietary records and biochemical markers among Greek schoolteachers. Int J Epidemiol 26, Suppl. 1, S118S127.
90Messerer, M, Johansson, SE & Wolk, A (2004) The validity of questionnaire-based micronutrient intake estimates is increased by including dietary supplement use in Swedish men. J Nutr 134, 18001805.
91Sevak, L, Mangtani, P, McCormack, V, et al. (2004) Validation of a food frequency questionnaire to assess macro- and micro-nutrient intake among South Asians in the United Kingdom. Eur J Nutr 43, 160168.
92Van Liere, MJ, Lucas, F, Clavel, F, et al. (1997) Relative validity and reproducibility of a French dietary history questionnaire. Int J Epidemiol 26, Suppl. 1, S128S136.
93Block, G, Wakimoto, P, Jensen, C, et al. (2006) Validation of a food frequency questionnaire for Hispanics. Prev Chronic Dis 3, 77A.
94Flagg, EW, Coates, RJ, Calle, EE, et al. (2000) Validation of the American Cancer Society Cancer Prevention Study II Nutrition Survey Cohort Food Frequency Questionnaire. Epidemiology 11, 462468.
95Fornés, NS, Stringhini, ML & Elias, BM (2003) Reproducibility and validity of a food-frequency questionnaire for use among low-income Brazilian workers. Public Health Nutr 6, 821827.
96Hebert, JR, Gupta, PC, Bhonsle, RB, et al. (1999) Development and testing of a quantitative food frequency questionnaire for use in Gujarat, India. Public Health Nutr 2, 3950.
97Kumanyika, SK, Mauger, D, Mitchell, DC, et al. (2003) Relative validity of food frequency questionnaire nutrient estimates in the Black Women's Health Study. Ann Epidemiol 13, 111118.
98Kusama, K, Le, DS, Hanh, TT, et al. (2005) Reproducibility and validity of a food frequency questionnaire among Vietnamese in Ho Chi Minh City. J Am Coll Nutr 24, 466473.
99Navarro, A, Osella, AR, Guerra, V, et al. (2001) Reproducibility and validity of a food-frequency questionnaire in assessing dietary intakes and food habits in epidemiological cancer studies in Argentina. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 20, 365370.
100Olafsdottir, AS, Thorsdottir, I, Gunnarsdottir, I, et al. (2006) Comparison of women's diet assessed by FFQs and 24-hour recalls with and without underreporters: associations with biomarkers. Ann Nutr Metab 50, 450460.
101Osowski, JM, Beare, T & Specker, B (2007) Validation of a food frequency questionnaire for assessment of calcium and bone-related nutrient intake in rural populations. J Am Diet Assoc 107, 13491355.
102Ribeiro, AC, Sávio, KEO, Rodrigues, MLCF, et al. (2006) Validação de um questionário de freqüência de consumo alimentar para população adulta (Validation of a questionnaire of food frequency for the adult population). Rev Nutr 19, 553562.
103Rodríguez, MM, Méndez, H, Torún, B, et al. (2002) Validation of a semi-quantitative food-frequency questionnaire for use among adults in Guatemala. Public Health Nutr 5, 691698.
104Segovia-Siapco, G, Singh, P, Jaceldo-Siegl, K, et al. (2007) Validation of a food-frequency questionnaire for measurement of nutrient intake in a dietary intervention study. Public Health Nutr 10, 177184.
105Serra-Majem, L, Morales, D, Domingo, C, et al. (1994) Comparison of 2 methods of evaluation of food and nutrient intake: 24-hour recall and semiquantitative frequency questionnaire. Med Clin (Barc) 103, 652656.
106Sevak, L, Mangtani, P, McCormack, V, et al. (2004) Validation of a food frequency questionnaire to assess macro- and micro-nutrient intake among South Asians in the United Kingdom. Eur J Nutr 43, 160168.
107Sichieri, R & Everhart, JE (1998) Validity of a Brazilian food frequency questionnaire against dietary recalls and estimated energy intakes. Nutr Res 18, 16491659.
108Sudha, V, Radhika, G, Sathya, RM, et al. (2006) Reproducibility and validity of an interviewer-administered semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire to assess dietary intake of urban adults in southern India. Int J Food Sci Nutr 57, 481493.
109Nelson, M, Quayle, A & Phillips, DI (1987) Iodine intake and excretion in two British towns: aspects of questionnaire validation. Hum Nutr Appl Nutr 41, 187192.
110Rasmussen, LB, Ovesen, L & Christiansen, E (1999) Day-to-day and within-day variation in urinary iodine excretion. Eur J Clin Nutr 53, 401407.
111Rasmussen, LB, Ovesen, L, Bülow, I, et al. (2002) Dietary iodine intake and urinary iodine excretion in a Danish population: effect of geography, supplements and food choice. Br J Nutr 87, 6169.
112Brug, J, Löwik, MR, Wedel, M, et al. (1992) Iodide excretion before and after revision of goiter prophylaxis (Dutch Nutrition Surveillance System). Eur J Clin Nutr 46, 671678.
113Bingham, SA, Gill, C, Welch, A, et al. (1994) Comparison of dietary assessment methods in nutritional epidemiology: weighed records v. 24 h recalls, food-frequency questionnaires and estimated-diet records. Br J Nutr 72, 619643.
114Bingham, SA, Gill, C, Welch, A, et al. (1997) Validation of dietary assessment methods in the UK arm of EPIC using weighed records, and 24-hour urinary nitrogen and potassium and serum vitamin C and carotenoids and biomarkers. Int J Epidemiol 26, Suppl. 1, S137S151.
115Galasso, R, Panico, S, Celentano, E, et al. (1994) Relative validity of multiple telephone versus face-to-face 24-hour dietary recalls. Ann Epidemiol 4, 332336.
116Lasfargues, G, Vol, S, Le Clésiau, H, et al. (1990) Validity of a short self-administered dietary questionnaire compared with a dietetic interview. Presse Med 19, 953957.
117Lyu, LC, Hankin, JH, Liu, LQ, et al. (1998) Telephone vs face-to-face interviews for quantitative food frequency assessment. J Am Diet Assoc 98, 4448.
118Matthys, C, Pynaert, I, Roe, M, et al. (2004) Validity and reproducibility of a computerised tool for assessing the iron, calcium and vitamin C intake of Belgian women. Eur J Clin Nutr 58, 12971305.
119McNaughton, SA, Mishra, GD, Bramwell, G, et al. (2005) Comparability of dietary patterns assessed by multiple dietary assessment methods: results from the 1946 British Birth Cohort. Eur J Clin Nutr 59, 341352.
120Sato, Y, Tamaki, J, Kitayama, F, et al. (2005) Development of a food-frequency questionnaire to measure the dietary calcium intake of adult Japanese women. Tohoku J Exp Med 207, 217222.
121Schaffer, DM, Coates, AO, Caan, BJ, et al. (1997) Performance of a shortened telephone-administered version of a quantitative food frequency questionnaire. Ann Epidemiol 7, 463471.
122Smith, CJ, Nelson, RG, Hardy, SA, et al. (1996) Survey of the diet of Pima Indians using quantitative food frequency assessment and 24-hour recall. J Am Diet Assoc 96, 778784.
123Takatsuka, N, Kurisu, Y, Nagata, C, et al. (1997) Validation of simplified diet history questionnaire. J Epidemiol 7, 3341.
124Ward, KD, Hunt, KM, Berg, MB, et al. (2004) Reliability and validity of a brief questionnaire to assess calcium intake in female collegiate athletes. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab 14, 209221.
125Welten, DC, Kemper, HC, Post, GB, et al. (1995) Comparison of a quantitative dairy questionnaire with a dietary history in young adults. Int J Epidemiol 24, 763770.