Evaluation of under- and overreporting of energy intake in the 24-hour diet recalls in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC)
(2002) In Public Health Nutrition 5(6B). p.1329-1345- Abstract
- Objective: To evaluate under- and overreporting and their determinants in the EPIC :24-hour diet recall (24-HDR) measurements collected in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC). Design: Cross-sectional analysis. 24-HDR measurements were obtained by means of a standardised computerised interview program (EPIC-SOFT). The ratio of reported energy intake (EI) to estimated basal metabolic rate (BMR) was used-to ascertain the magnitude, impact and determinants of misreporting. Goldberg's cut-off points were used to identify participants with physiologically extreme low or high energy intake. At the aggregate level the value of 1.55 for physical activity level (PAL) was chosen as reference. At the individual... (More)
- Objective: To evaluate under- and overreporting and their determinants in the EPIC :24-hour diet recall (24-HDR) measurements collected in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC). Design: Cross-sectional analysis. 24-HDR measurements were obtained by means of a standardised computerised interview program (EPIC-SOFT). The ratio of reported energy intake (EI) to estimated basal metabolic rate (BMR) was used-to ascertain the magnitude, impact and determinants of misreporting. Goldberg's cut-off points were used to identify participants with physiologically extreme low or high energy intake. At the aggregate level the value of 1.55 for physical activity level (PAL) was chosen as reference. At the individual level we used multivariate statistical techniques to identify factors that could explain EI/BMR variability. Analyses were performed by adjusting for weight, height, age at recall, special diet, smoking status, day of recall (weekday vs. weekend day) and physical activity. Setting: Twenty-seven redefined centres in the 10 countries participating in the EPIC project. Subjects: in total, 35955 men and women, aged 35-74 years, participating in the nested EPIC calibration sub-studies. Results: While overreporting has only a minor impact, the percentage of subjects identified as extreme underreporters was 13.8% and 10.3% in women and men, respectively. Mean EI/BMR values in men and women were 1.44 and 1.36 including all subjects, and 1.50 and 1.44 after exclusion of misreporters. After exclusion of misreporters, adjusted EI/BMR means were consistently less than 10% different from the expected value of 1.55 for PAL (except for women in Greece and in the UK), with overall differences equal to 4.0% and 7.4% for men and women, respectively. We modelled the probability of being an underreporter in association with several individual characteristics. After adjustment for age, height, special diet,- smoking status, day of recall and physical activity at work logistic regression analyses resulted in an odds ratio (OR) of being an underreporter for the highest vs. the lowest quartile of body mass index (BMI) of 3.52 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.91-4.26) in men and 4.80 (95% CI 4.11-5.61) in women, indicating that overweight subjects are significantly more likely to underestimate energy intake than subjects in the bottom BMI category. Older people were less likely to underestimate energy intake: ORs were 0.58 (95% CI 0.45-0.77) and 0.74 (95% CI 0.63-0.88) for age (greater than or equal to 65 years vs. < 50 years). Special diet and day of the week showed strong effects. Conclusion: EI tends to be underestimated in the vast majority of the EPIC centres, although to varying degrees; at the aggregate level most centres were below the expected reference value of 1.55. Underreporting seems to be more prevalent among women than men in the EPIC calibration sample. The hypothesis that BMI (or weight) and age are causally related to underreporting seems to be confirmed in the present work. This introduces further complexity in the within-group (centre or country) and between-group calibration of dietary questionnaire measurements to deattenuate the diet-disease relationship. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/316789
- author
- organization
- publishing date
- 2002
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- measurement, underreporting, 24-hour dietary recall, EPIC, errors, calibration, body mass index
- in
- Public Health Nutrition
- volume
- 5
- issue
- 6B
- pages
- 1329 - 1345
- publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- external identifiers
-
- wos:000181402400016
- pmid:12639236
- scopus:0036927342
- pmid:12639236
- ISSN
- 1475-2727
- DOI
- 10.1079/PHN2002409
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- additional info
- The information about affiliations in this record was updated in December 2015. The record was previously connected to the following departments: Emergency medicine/Medicine/Surgery (013240200), Internal Medicine Research Unit (013242520)
- id
- 7d456743-155e-4099-aa9a-32c5a52706ae (old id 316789)
- date added to LUP
- 2016-04-01 16:05:08
- date last changed
- 2022-03-30 05:16:40
@article{7d456743-155e-4099-aa9a-32c5a52706ae,
abstract = {{Objective: To evaluate under- and overreporting and their determinants in the EPIC :24-hour diet recall (24-HDR) measurements collected in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC). Design: Cross-sectional analysis. 24-HDR measurements were obtained by means of a standardised computerised interview program (EPIC-SOFT). The ratio of reported energy intake (EI) to estimated basal metabolic rate (BMR) was used-to ascertain the magnitude, impact and determinants of misreporting. Goldberg's cut-off points were used to identify participants with physiologically extreme low or high energy intake. At the aggregate level the value of 1.55 for physical activity level (PAL) was chosen as reference. At the individual level we used multivariate statistical techniques to identify factors that could explain EI/BMR variability. Analyses were performed by adjusting for weight, height, age at recall, special diet, smoking status, day of recall (weekday vs. weekend day) and physical activity. Setting: Twenty-seven redefined centres in the 10 countries participating in the EPIC project. Subjects: in total, 35955 men and women, aged 35-74 years, participating in the nested EPIC calibration sub-studies. Results: While overreporting has only a minor impact, the percentage of subjects identified as extreme underreporters was 13.8% and 10.3% in women and men, respectively. Mean EI/BMR values in men and women were 1.44 and 1.36 including all subjects, and 1.50 and 1.44 after exclusion of misreporters. After exclusion of misreporters, adjusted EI/BMR means were consistently less than 10% different from the expected value of 1.55 for PAL (except for women in Greece and in the UK), with overall differences equal to 4.0% and 7.4% for men and women, respectively. We modelled the probability of being an underreporter in association with several individual characteristics. After adjustment for age, height, special diet,- smoking status, day of recall and physical activity at work logistic regression analyses resulted in an odds ratio (OR) of being an underreporter for the highest vs. the lowest quartile of body mass index (BMI) of 3.52 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.91-4.26) in men and 4.80 (95% CI 4.11-5.61) in women, indicating that overweight subjects are significantly more likely to underestimate energy intake than subjects in the bottom BMI category. Older people were less likely to underestimate energy intake: ORs were 0.58 (95% CI 0.45-0.77) and 0.74 (95% CI 0.63-0.88) for age (greater than or equal to 65 years vs. < 50 years). Special diet and day of the week showed strong effects. Conclusion: EI tends to be underestimated in the vast majority of the EPIC centres, although to varying degrees; at the aggregate level most centres were below the expected reference value of 1.55. Underreporting seems to be more prevalent among women than men in the EPIC calibration sample. The hypothesis that BMI (or weight) and age are causally related to underreporting seems to be confirmed in the present work. This introduces further complexity in the within-group (centre or country) and between-group calibration of dietary questionnaire measurements to deattenuate the diet-disease relationship.}},
author = {{Ferrari, P and Slimani, N and Ciampi, A and Trichopoulou, A and Naska, A and Lauria, C and Veglia, F and Bueno-de-Mesquita, HB and Ocke, MC and Brustad, M and Braaten, T and Tormo, MJ and Amiano, P and Mattisson, Iréne and Johansson, G and Welch, A and Davey, G and Overvad, K and Tjonneland, A and Clavel-Chapelon, F and Thiebaut, A and Linseisen, J and Boeing, H and Hemon, B and Riboli, E}},
issn = {{1475-2727}},
keywords = {{measurement; underreporting; 24-hour dietary recall; EPIC; errors; calibration; body mass index}},
language = {{eng}},
number = {{6B}},
pages = {{1329--1345}},
publisher = {{Cambridge University Press}},
series = {{Public Health Nutrition}},
title = {{Evaluation of under- and overreporting of energy intake in the 24-hour diet recalls in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC)}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1079/PHN2002409}},
doi = {{10.1079/PHN2002409}},
volume = {{5}},
year = {{2002}},
}