Validation of Total Water Intake from the Automated Self-Administered 24-h Recall, 4-d Food Records, and a Food Frequency Questionnaire Using Doubly Labeled Water.
24-h recall
4-d food record
dietary assessment
food frequency questionnaire
hydration
recovery biomarker
validation
Journal
The Journal of nutrition
ISSN: 1541-6100
Titre abrégé: J Nutr
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0404243
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2023
10 2023
Historique:
received:
26
05
2023
revised:
15
08
2023
accepted:
23
08
2023
pmc-release:
03
09
2024
medline:
2
11
2023
pubmed:
4
9
2023
entrez:
3
9
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Although prior evidence indicates that water intake is important for health, the ability to accurately measure community-dwelling intake is limited. Only a few studies have evaluated self-reported water intake against an objective recovery biomarker. The aim was to compare preformed water intakes (all sources including food) by multiple Automated Self-Administered 24-h recalls (ASA24s), food frequency questionnaires (FFQs), and 4-d food records (4DFRs) against a recovery biomarker, doubly labeled water (DLW), to assess measurement error. Over 1 y, 1082 women and men (50%), aged 50 to 74 y, were asked to complete 6 ASA24s, 2 FFQs, 2 unweighted 4DFRs, and an administration of DLW (n = 686). Geometric means of water intake by self-report tools were compared with DLW. Attenuation factors and correlation coefficients between self-reported and the recovery biomarker (DLW) were estimated. Mean water intakes by DLW were 2777 mL/d (interquartile range, 2350 to 3331) in women and 3243 mL/d (interquartile range, 2720 to 3838) in men. Compared with DLW, water intake was underestimated by 18% to 31% on ASA24s and 43% to 44% on 4DFRs. Estimated geometric means from FFQs differed from DLW by -1% to +13%. For a single ASA24, FFQ, and 4DFR, attenuation factors were 0.28, 0.27, and 0.32 and correlation coefficients were 0.46, 0.48, and 0.49, respectively. Repeated use of 6 ASA24s, 2 FFQs, and 2 4DFRs improved attenuation factors to 0.43, 0.32, and 0.39 and correlation coefficients to 0.58, 0.53, and 0.54, respectively. FFQs may better estimate population means for usual water intake compared with ASA24 and 4DFR. Similar attenuation factors and correlation coefficients across all self-report tools indicate that researchers have 3 feasible options if the goal is understanding intake-disease relationships. The findings are useful for planning future nutrition studies that set policy priorities for populations and to understand the health impact of water. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03268577.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Although prior evidence indicates that water intake is important for health, the ability to accurately measure community-dwelling intake is limited. Only a few studies have evaluated self-reported water intake against an objective recovery biomarker.
OBJECTIVES
The aim was to compare preformed water intakes (all sources including food) by multiple Automated Self-Administered 24-h recalls (ASA24s), food frequency questionnaires (FFQs), and 4-d food records (4DFRs) against a recovery biomarker, doubly labeled water (DLW), to assess measurement error.
METHODS
Over 1 y, 1082 women and men (50%), aged 50 to 74 y, were asked to complete 6 ASA24s, 2 FFQs, 2 unweighted 4DFRs, and an administration of DLW (n = 686). Geometric means of water intake by self-report tools were compared with DLW. Attenuation factors and correlation coefficients between self-reported and the recovery biomarker (DLW) were estimated.
RESULTS
Mean water intakes by DLW were 2777 mL/d (interquartile range, 2350 to 3331) in women and 3243 mL/d (interquartile range, 2720 to 3838) in men. Compared with DLW, water intake was underestimated by 18% to 31% on ASA24s and 43% to 44% on 4DFRs. Estimated geometric means from FFQs differed from DLW by -1% to +13%. For a single ASA24, FFQ, and 4DFR, attenuation factors were 0.28, 0.27, and 0.32 and correlation coefficients were 0.46, 0.48, and 0.49, respectively. Repeated use of 6 ASA24s, 2 FFQs, and 2 4DFRs improved attenuation factors to 0.43, 0.32, and 0.39 and correlation coefficients to 0.58, 0.53, and 0.54, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
FFQs may better estimate population means for usual water intake compared with ASA24 and 4DFR. Similar attenuation factors and correlation coefficients across all self-report tools indicate that researchers have 3 feasible options if the goal is understanding intake-disease relationships. The findings are useful for planning future nutrition studies that set policy priorities for populations and to understand the health impact of water. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03268577.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37660952
pii: S0022-3166(23)72555-8
doi: 10.1016/j.tjnut.2023.08.027
pmc: PMC10613756
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biomarkers
0
Water
059QF0KO0R
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03268577']
Types de publication
Clinical Trial
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3049-3057Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : HHSN261201000057I
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : N02PC64406
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Published by Elsevier Inc.
Références
Br J Nutr. 2016 Aug;116(4):677-82
pubmed: 27326891
Am J Clin Nutr. 1997 Apr;65(4 Suppl):1179S-1186S
pubmed: 9094918
Am J Epidemiol. 2002 May 1;155(9):827-33
pubmed: 11978586
Am J Nephrol. 2013;37(5):434-42
pubmed: 23594828
Hum Genet. 2009 Jun;125(5-6):507-25
pubmed: 19357868
Am J Epidemiol. 2001 Dec 15;154(12):1089-99
pubmed: 11744511
Am J Physiol. 1994 Oct;267(4 Pt 1):E585-90
pubmed: 7943308
Am J Epidemiol. 2014 Jul 15;180(2):172-88
pubmed: 24918187
Science. 2022 Nov 25;378(6622):909-915
pubmed: 36423296
Am J Clin Nutr. 2018 Jan 1;107(1):80-93
pubmed: 29381789
Int J Obes (Lond). 2013 Apr;37(4):598-603
pubmed: 22614056
Saudi J Anaesth. 2022 Jan-Mar;16(1):65-68
pubmed: 35261591
Am J Physiol. 1992 Nov;263(5 Pt 1):E965-73
pubmed: 1443129
J Nutr. 2006 Oct;136(10):2594-9
pubmed: 16988132
Am J Epidemiol. 2003 Jul 1;158(1):14-21; discussion 22-6
pubmed: 12835281
J Neurol Sci. 2012 Apr 15;315(1-2):82-5
pubmed: 22169398
Nephrology (Carlton). 2011 Mar;16(3):326-34
pubmed: 21342326
Am J Physiol Renal Physiol. 2004 Feb;286(2):F394-401
pubmed: 14600032
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2020 Jan;74(1):158-166
pubmed: 31160665
Front Nutr. 2021 Jun 14;8:676697
pubmed: 34195218
J Acad Nutr Diet. 2015 Dec;115(12):1986-95
pubmed: 26422452
Am J Epidemiol. 2003 Jul 1;158(1):1-13
pubmed: 12835280
Curr Biol. 2016 Dec 19;26(24):R1260-R1265
pubmed: 27997832
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2010 Feb;64(2):115-23
pubmed: 19724292
Nutrients. 2018 May 07;10(5):
pubmed: 29735885
Am J Epidemiol. 2022 May 20;191(6):1125-1139
pubmed: 35136928
Public Health Nutr. 2021 Sep 02;:1-11
pubmed: 34472428
Circulation. 2010 May 18;121(19):2102-8
pubmed: 20439785
J Nutr. 2017 Oct;147(10):2001-2007
pubmed: 28878034