schliessen

Filtern

 

Bibliotheken

Comparison of Methods to Account for Implausible Reporting of Energy Intake in Epidemiologic Studies

In a recent article in the American Journal of Epidemiology by Mendez et al . ( Am J Epidemiol. 2011;173(4):448–458 ), the use of alternative approaches to the exclusion of implausible energy intakes led to significantly different cross-sectional associations between diet and body mass index (BMI),... Full description

Journal Title: American Journal of Epidemiology 2015, Vol. 181(4), pp.225-233
Main Author: Rhee, Jinnie J
Other Authors: Sampson, Laura , Cho, Eunyoung , Hughes, Michael D , Hu, Frank B , Willett, Walter C
Format: Electronic Article Electronic Article
Language:
Subjects:
ID: ISSN: 0002-9262 ; E-ISSN: 1476-6256 ; DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwu308
Zum Text:
SendSend as email Add to Book BagAdd to Book Bag
Staff View
recordid: oxford10.1093/aje/kwu308
title: Comparison of Methods to Account for Implausible Reporting of Energy Intake in Epidemiologic Studies
format: Article
creator:
  • Rhee, Jinnie J
  • Sampson, Laura
  • Cho, Eunyoung
  • Hughes, Michael D
  • Hu, Frank B
  • Willett, Walter C
subjects:
  • Biomarkers
  • Body Mass Index
  • Diet
  • Energy Intake
  • Implausible Reporting
  • Selection Bias
ispartof: American Journal of Epidemiology, 2015, Vol. 181(4), pp.225-233
description: In a recent article in the American Journal of Epidemiology by Mendez et al . ( Am J Epidemiol. 2011;173(4):448–458 ), the use of alternative approaches to the exclusion of implausible energy intakes led to significantly different cross-sectional associations between diet and body mass index (BMI), whereas the use of a simpler recommended criteria (3,500 kcal/day) yielded no meaningful change. However, these findings might have been due to exclusions made based on weight, a primary determinant of BMI. Using data from 52,110 women in the Nurses' Health Study (1990), we reproduced the cross-sectional findings of Mendez et al. and compared the results from the recommended method with those from 2 weight-dependent alternative methods (the Goldberg method and predicted total energy expenditure method). The same 3 exclusion criteria were then used to examine dietary variables prospectively in relation to change in BMI, which is not a direct function of attained weight. We found similar associations using the 3 methods. In a separate cross-sectional analysis using biomarkers of dietary factors, we found similar correlations for intakes of fatty acids ( n = 439) and carotenoids and retinol ( n = 1,293) using the 3 methods for exclusions. These results do not support the general conclusion that use of exclusion criteria based on the alternative methods might confer an advantage over the recommended exclusion method.
language:
source:
identifier: ISSN: 0002-9262 ; E-ISSN: 1476-6256 ; DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwu308
fulltext: fulltext
issn:
  • 0002-9262
  • 00029262
  • 1476-6256
  • 14766256
url: Link


@attributes
ID1824803713
RANK0.07
NO1
SEARCH_ENGINEprimo_central_multiple_fe
SEARCH_ENGINE_TYPEPrimo Central Search Engine
LOCALfalse
PrimoNMBib
record
control
sourcerecordid10.1093/aje/kwu308
sourceidoxford
recordidTN_oxford10.1093/aje/kwu308
sourceformatXML
sourcesystemOther
pqid1655257755
galeid402710196
display
typearticle
titleComparison of Methods to Account for Implausible Reporting of Energy Intake in Epidemiologic Studies
creatorRhee, Jinnie J ; Sampson, Laura ; Cho, Eunyoung ; Hughes, Michael D ; Hu, Frank B ; Willett, Walter C
ispartofAmerican Journal of Epidemiology, 2015, Vol. 181(4), pp.225-233
identifier
subjectBiomarkers ; Body Mass Index ; Diet ; Energy Intake ; Implausible Reporting ; Selection Bias
descriptionIn a recent article in the American Journal of Epidemiology by Mendez et al . ( Am J Epidemiol. 2011;173(4):448–458 ), the use of alternative approaches to the exclusion of implausible energy intakes led to significantly different cross-sectional associations between diet and body mass index (BMI), whereas the use of a simpler recommended criteria (<500 and >3,500 kcal/day) yielded no meaningful change. However, these findings might have been due to exclusions made based on weight, a primary determinant of BMI. Using data from 52,110 women in the Nurses' Health Study (1990), we reproduced the cross-sectional findings of Mendez et al. and compared the results from the recommended method with those from 2 weight-dependent alternative methods (the Goldberg method and predicted total energy expenditure method). The same 3 exclusion criteria were then used to examine dietary variables prospectively in relation to change in BMI, which is not a direct function of attained weight. We found similar associations using the 3 methods. In a separate cross-sectional analysis using biomarkers of dietary factors, we found similar correlations for intakes of fatty acids ( n = 439) and carotenoids and retinol ( n = 1,293) using the 3 methods for exclusions. These results do not support the general conclusion that use of exclusion criteria based on the alternative methods might confer an advantage over the recommended exclusion method.
source
version8
lds50peer_reviewed
links
openurl$$Topenurl_article
openurlfulltext$$Topenurlfull_article
search
creatorcontrib
0Rhee, Jinnie J
1Sampson, Laura
2Cho, Eunyoung
3Hughes, Michael D
4Hu, Frank B
5Willett, Walter C
titleComparison of Methods to Account for Implausible Reporting of Energy Intake in Epidemiologic Studies
descriptionIn a recent article in the American Journal of Epidemiology by Mendez et al . ( Am J Epidemiol. 2011;173(4):448–458 ), the use of alternative approaches to the exclusion of implausible energy intakes led to significantly different cross-sectional associations between diet and body mass index (BMI), whereas the use of a simpler recommended criteria (<500 and >3,500 kcal/day) yielded no meaningful change. However, these findings might have been due to exclusions made based on weight, a primary determinant of BMI. Using data from 52,110 women in the Nurses' Health Study (1990), we reproduced the cross-sectional findings of Mendez et al. and compared the results from the recommended method with those from 2 weight-dependent alternative methods (the Goldberg method and predicted total energy expenditure method). The same 3 exclusion criteria were then used to examine dietary variables prospectively in relation to change in BMI, which is not a direct function of attained weight. We found similar associations using the 3 methods. In a separate cross-sectional analysis using biomarkers of dietary factors, we found similar correlations for intakes of fatty acids ( n = 439) and carotenoids and retinol ( n = 1,293) using the 3 methods for exclusions. These results do not support the general conclusion that use of exclusion criteria based on the alternative methods might confer an advantage over the recommended exclusion method.
subject
0biomarkers
1body mass index
2diet
3energy intake
4implausible reporting
5selection bias
general
0kwu308
110.1093/aje/kwu308
2Oxford Journals
sourceidoxford
recordidoxford10.1093/aje/kwu308
issn
00002-9262
100029262
21476-6256
314766256
rsrctypearticle
creationdate2015
addtitleAmerican Journal of Epidemiology
searchscopeoxford
scopeoxford
lsr4020150215
lsr4120150205
lsr30VSR-Enriched:[pqid, date, galeid]
sort
titleComparison of Methods to Account for Implausible Reporting of Energy Intake in Epidemiologic Studies
authorRhee, Jinnie J ; Sampson, Laura ; Cho, Eunyoung ; Hughes, Michael D ; Hu, Frank B ; Willett, Walter C
creationdate20150200
facets
frbrgroupid9038555459400649811
frbrtype5
newrecords
020170612
120170612
creationdate2015
topic
0Biomarkers
1Body Mass Index
2Diet
3Energy Intake
4Implausible Reporting
5Selection Bias
collectionOxford Journals (Oxford University Press)
prefilterarticles
rsrctypearticles
creatorcontrib
0Rhee, Jinnie J
1Sampson, Laura
2Cho, Eunyoung
3Hughes, Michael D
4Hu, Frank B
5Willett, Walter C
jtitleAmerican Journal Of Epidemiology
toplevelpeer_reviewed
delivery
delcategoryRemote Search Resource
fulltextfulltext
addata
aulast
0Rhee
1Sampson
2Cho
3Hughes
4Hu
5Willett
aufirst
0Jinnie J.
1Laura
2Eunyoung
3Michael D.
4Frank B.
5Walter C.
au
0Rhee, Jinnie J.
1Sampson, Laura
2Cho, Eunyoung
3Hughes, Michael D.
4Hu, Frank B.
5Willett, Walter C.
atitleComparison of Methods to Account for Implausible Reporting of Energy Intake in Epidemiologic Studies
jtitleAmerican Journal of Epidemiology
risdate201502
volume181
issue4
spage225
epage233
pages225-233
issn0002-9262
eissn1476-6256
formatjournal
genrearticle
ristypeJOUR
abstractIn a recent article in the American Journal of Epidemiology by Mendez et al . ( Am J Epidemiol. 2011;173(4):448–458 ), the use of alternative approaches to the exclusion of implausible energy intakes led to significantly different cross-sectional associations between diet and body mass index (BMI), whereas the use of a simpler recommended criteria (<500 and >3,500 kcal/day) yielded no meaningful change. However, these findings might have been due to exclusions made based on weight, a primary determinant of BMI. Using data from 52,110 women in the Nurses' Health Study (1990), we reproduced the cross-sectional findings of Mendez et al. and compared the results from the recommended method with those from 2 weight-dependent alternative methods (the Goldberg method and predicted total energy expenditure method). The same 3 exclusion criteria were then used to examine dietary variables prospectively in relation to change in BMI, which is not a direct function of attained weight. We found similar associations using the 3 methods. In a separate cross-sectional analysis using biomarkers of dietary factors, we found similar correlations for intakes of fatty acids ( n = 439) and carotenoids and retinol ( n = 1,293) using the 3 methods for exclusions. These results do not support the general conclusion that use of exclusion criteria based on the alternative methods might confer an advantage over the recommended exclusion method.
pubOxford University Press
doi10.1093/aje/kwu308
date2015-02-15