Invited commentary: Dietary misreporting as a potential source of bias in diet-disease associations: Future directions in nutritional epidemiology research

American Journal of Epidemiology

Volumn 181, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 234-236

  Mendez, Michelle A ^a  

^a University of North Carolina   (United States)

Author keywords

Body mass index; Energy intake; Implausible reporting; Measurement error

Indexed keywords

BIOMARKER; BODY MASS; CALIBRATION; DIET; EPIDEMIOLOGY; ERROR ANALYSIS; FUTURE PROSPECT; OBESITY; OBSERVATIONAL METHOD; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

ANTHROPOMETRIC PARAMETERS; BODY MASS; CALIBRATION; CALORIC INTAKE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL EVALUATION; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DIETARY INTAKE; DIETARY MISREPORTING; DISEASE ASSOCIATION; ENERGY CONSUMPTION; FOOD INTAKE; HUMAN; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MEASUREMENT ERROR; NUTRITIONAL ASSESSMENT; OBESITY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT SAFETY; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; REVIEW; SCREENING TEST; SELF REPORT; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; WEIGHT CHANGE; BLOOD; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES; EXERCISE; FEMALE; NURSE; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

CAROTENOID; FATTY ACID;

BODY MASS INDEX; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES; CAROTENOIDS; ENERGY INTAKE; EXERCISE; FATTY ACIDS; FEMALE; HUMANS; NURSES;

EID: 84927978937     PISSN: 00029262     EISSN: 14766256     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwu306     Document Type: Review

References (30)

1. Scagliusi FB, Ferriolli E, Pfrimer K, et al. Underreporting of energy intake in Brazilian women varies according to dietary assessment: a cross-sectional study using doubly labeled water. J Am Diet Assoc. 2008;108(12):2031-2040.
2. Subar AF, Kipnis V, Troiano RP, et al. Using intake biomarkers to evaluate the extent of dietary misreporting in a large sample of adults: the OPEN Study. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;158(1):1-13.
3. Freedman LS, Commins JM, Moler JE, et al. Pooled results from 5 validation studies of dietary self-report instruments using recovery biomarkers for energy and protein intake. Am J Epidemiol. 2014;180(2):172-188.
4. Trabulsi J, Schoeller DA. Evaluation of dietary assessment instruments against doubly labeled water, a biomarker of habitual energy intake. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2001; 281(5):E891-E899.
5. Burrows TL, Martin RJ, Collins CE. A systematic review of the validity of dietary assessment methods in children when compared with the method of doubly labeled water. J Am Diet Assoc. 2010;110(10):1501-1510.
6. Neuhouser ML, Tinker L, Shaw PA, et al. Use of recovery biomarkers to calibrate nutrient consumption self-reports in the Women's Health Initiative. Am J Epidemiol. 2008;167(10): 1247-1259.
7. Tooze JA, Krebs-Smith SM, Troiano RP, et al. The accuracy of the Goldberg method for classifying misreporters of energy intake on a food frequency questionnaire and 24-h recalls: comparison with doubly labeled water. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2012; 66(5):569-576.
8. Tooze JA, Subar AF, Thompson FE, et al. Psychosocial predictors of energy underreporting in a large doubly labeled water study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004;79(5):795-804.
9. Karelis AD, Lavoie ME, Fontaine J, et al. Anthropometric, metabolic, dietary and psychosocial profiles of underreporters of energy intake: a doubly labeled water study among overweight/obese postmenopausal women-a Montreal Ottawa New Emerging Team study. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2010;64(1):68-74.
10. Scagliusi FB, Ferriolli E, Pfrimer K, et al. Characteristics of women who frequently under report their energy intake: a doubly labelled water study. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2009;63(10): 1192-1199.
11. Millen AE, Tooze JA, Subar AF, et al. Differences between food group reports of low-energy reporters and non-low-energy reporters on a food frequency questionnaire. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009;109(7):1194-1203.
12. Rhee JJ, Sampson L, Cho E, et al. Comparison of methods to account for implausible reporting of energy intake in epidemiologic studies. Am J Epidemiol. 2015;181(4): 225-333.
13. Willett W. Nutritional Epidemiology. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2012.
14. Huang TT, Roberts SB, Howarth NC, et al. Effect of screening out implausible energy intake reports on relationships between diet and BMI. Obes Res. 2005;13(7):1205-1217.
15. Black AE. Critical evaluation of energy intake using the Goldberg cut-off for energy intake:basal metabolic rate. A practical guide to its calculation, use and limitations. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2000;24(9):1119-1130.
16. Romaguera D, Norat T, Mouw T, et al. Adherence to the Mediterranean diet is associated with lower abdominal adiposity in European men and women. J Nutr. 2009;139(9): 1728-1737.
17. Mendez MA, Popkin BM, Jakszyn P, et al. Adherence to a Mediterranean diet is associated with reduced 3-year incidence of obesity. J Nutr. 2006;136(11):2934-2938.
18. Mendez MA, Popkin BM, Buckland G, et al. Alternative methods of accounting for underreporting and overreporting when measuring dietary intake-obesity relations. Am J Epidemiol. 2011;173(4):448-458.
19. Emond JA, Patterson RE, Jardack PM, et al. Using doubly labeled water to validate associations between sugar-sweetened beverage intake and body mass among white and African-American adults. Int J Obes. 2014;38(4):603-609.
20. Bes-Rastrollo M, Martinez-Gonzalez MA. Differential underreporting and other caveats about sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008;88(5): 1450-1451.
21. Stice E, Durant S. Elevated objectively measured but not self-reported energy intake predicts future weight gain in adolescents. Appetite. 2014;81:84-88.
22. Prentice RL, Shaw PA, Bingham SA, et al. Biomarker-calibrated energy and protein consumption and increased cancer risk among postmenopausal women. Am J Epidemiol. 2009;169(8):977-989.
23. Prentice RL, Tinker LF, Huang Y, et al. Calibration of self-reported dietary measures using biomarkers: an approach to enhancing nutritional epidemiology reliability. Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2013;15(9):353.
24. Schatzkin A, Subar AF, Moore S, et al. Observational epidemiologic studies of nutrition and cancer: the next generation (with better observation). Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009;18(4):1026-1032.
25. Carroll RJ, Midthune D, Subar AF, et al. Taking advantage of the strengths of 2 different dietary assessment instruments to improve intake estimates for nutritional epidemiology. Am J Epidemiol. 2012;175(4):340-347.
26. Cross AJ, Major JM, Sinha R. Urinary biomarkers of meat consumption. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2011;20(6): 1107-1111.
27. Tasevska N, Midthune D, Potischman N, et al. Use of the predictive sugars biomarker to evaluate self-reported total sugars intake in the Observing Protein and Energy Nutrition (OPEN) Study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2011; 20(3):490-500.
28. Fraser GE. A search for truth in dietary epidemiology. Am J Clin Nutr. 2003;78(3 suppl):521S-525S.
29. Riboli E, Norat T. Epidemiologic evidence of the protective effect of fruit and vegetables on cancer risk. Am J Clin Nutr. 2003;78(3 Suppl):559S-569S.
30. Key TJ. Fruit and vegetables and cancer risk. Br J Cancer. 2011;104(1):6-11.