third and fourth recalls), ICC was 0♵2 for EI and ranged from 0♳7 for fat to 0♶3 for NMES. Considering pairs of recalls (first two v. ICC for a single recall was 0♳5 for EI and ranged from 0♳1 for Fe to 0♴3 for non-milk extrinsic sugars (NMES). Correlations between EI and TEE were 0♳1 (first), 0♴7 (first two) and 0♳9 (first three recalls), respectively. Compared with TEE, participants under-reported EI by 25 % (95 % limits of agreement -73 % to +68 %) in the first recall, 22 % (-61 % to +41 %) for average of first two, and 25 % (-60 % to +28 %) for first three recalls. Test-retest reliability of energy and nutrient intakes was assessed using data from three further UK studies where participants (11-88 years) completed Intake24 at least four times reliability was assessed using intra-class correlations (ICC). Accuracy and precision of EI were assessed using correlation and Bland-Altman analysis. The validity of energy intakes (EI) reported using Intake24, an online 24-h recall system, was assessed against concurrent measurement of total energy expenditure (TEE) using doubly labelled water in ninety-eight UK adults (40-65 years). Comparison against interviewer-led recalls established their convergent validity however, reliability and criterion-validity information is lacking. Online self-reported 24-h dietary recall systems promise increased feasibility of dietary assessment.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |