Document Type
Journal Article
Publication Title
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
Volume
120
Issue
1
First Page
196
Last Page
210
PubMed ID
38710447
Publisher
Elsevier
School
School of Medical and Health Sciences
RAS ID
71198
Funders
Australian Research Council / National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia Leadership /
Grant Number
190101723, APP2009340
Abstract
Background: Technology-assisted 24-h dietary recalls (24HRs) have been widely adopted in population nutrition surveillance. Evaluations of 24HRs inform improvements, but direct comparisons of 24HR methods for accuracy in reference to a measure of true intake are rarely undertaken in a single study population. Objectives: To compare the accuracy of energy and nutrient intake estimation of 4 technology-assisted dietary assessment methods relative to true intake across breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Methods: In a controlled feeding study with a crossover design, 152 participants [55% women; mean age 32 y, standard deviation (SD) 11; mean body mass index 26 kg/m2, SD 5] were randomized to 1 of 3 separate feeding days to consume breakfast, lunch, and dinner, with unobtrusive weighing of foods and beverages consumed. Participants undertook a 24HR the following day [Automated Self-Administered Dietary Assessment Tool-Australia (ASA24); Intake24-Australia; mobile Food Record-Trained Analyst (mFR-TA); or Image-Assisted Interviewer-Administered 24-hour recall (IA-24HR)]. When assigned to IA-24HR, participants referred to images captured of their meals using the mobile Food Record (mFR) app. True and estimated energy and nutrient intakes were compared, and differences among methods were assessed using linear mixed models. Results: The mean difference between true and estimated energy intake as a percentage of true intake was 5.4% (95% CI: 0.6, 10.2%) using ASA24, 1.7% (95% CI: −2.9, 6.3%) using Intake24, 1.3% (95% CI: −1.1, 3.8%) using mFR-TA, and 15.0% (95% CI: 11.6, 18.3%) using IA-24HR. The variances of estimated and true energy intakes were statistically significantly different for all methods (P < 0.01) except Intake24 (P = 0.1). Differential accuracy in nutrient estimation was present among the methods. Conclusions: Under controlled conditions, Intake24, ASA24, and mFR-TA estimated average energy and nutrient intakes with reasonable validity, but intake distributions were estimated accurately by Intake24 only (energy and protein). This study may inform considerations regarding instruments of choice in future population surveillance. This trial was registered at Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry as ACTRN12621000209897.
DOI
10.1016/j.ajcnut.2024.04.030
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Comments
Whitton, C., Collins, C. E., Mullan, B. A., Rollo, M. E., Dhaliwal, S. S., Norman, R., ... & Kerr, D. A. (2024). Accuracy of energy and nutrient intake estimation versus observed intake using 4 technology-assisted dietary assessment methods: a randomized crossover feeding study. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 120(1), 196-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajcnut.2024.04.030