Developing a scoring method for evaluating dietary methodology in reviews of epidemiologic studies

Leslie K Dennis, Linda G. Snetselaar, Faryle K. Nothwehr, Ronald E. Stewart

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

18 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We examined the quality of dietary assessment used by studies of prostate cancer and dietary fat in an attempt to explain the heterogeneity of their relative risk (RR) estimates. We reviewed the dietary assessment of 39 studies published in English that reported RRs for the association between prostate cancer and dietary fat intake derived from food frequency questionnaires (FFQs). We scored studies based on several objective measures of quality dietary assessment. Studies received no points for characteristics with unclear information. Studies scored 2 points for interviewer-completed FFQs, along with 2 points for quantitative assessments. They were scored 4 points for FFQs with more than 150 items, with an additional point for pretesting and 2 points for validated FFQs. Studies were given 1 point for describing each of the following characteristics: specifying the nutrient database used to convert foods to grams of fat, specifying quality control, attempting to measure dietary intake prior to diagnosis (recalled dietary period), and reporting the time needed to complete the FFQ. We then ranked studies based on their overall score: ″high" for a score of 7 or greater out of 15 and ″low" for lower scores. Two of the 39 studies that used quantitative methods other than a FFQ were excluded. Of the remaining 37 studies reviewed that used FFQs, only 16 were judged to have a high quality assessment of dietary fat. This review highlights the inconsistency of FFQ used in epidemiologic studies of dietary fat. Such variations in dietary measurement may be reflected in the variation in the magnitude of RRs reported for prostate cancer and dietary fat. The problems identified here include insufficient reporting of the details of dietary assessment, in addition to use of questionnaires with only a few food items to estimate a subject's dietary fat intake. It is imperative that journals include experts in the field of nutrition as reviewers of epidemiologic papers describing diet. J Am Diet Assoc. 2003;103:483-487.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)483-487
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of the American Dietetic Association
Volume103
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2003
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

food frequency questionnaires
epidemiological studies
Epidemiologic Studies
Research Design
Dietary Fats
Food
dietary fat
prostatic neoplasms
nutritional adequacy
fat intake
Prostatic Neoplasms
methodology
nutrient databanks
risk estimate
Diet
relative risk
Surveys and Questionnaires
diet
quality control
quantitative analysis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Food Science
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Developing a scoring method for evaluating dietary methodology in reviews of epidemiologic studies. / Dennis, Leslie K; Snetselaar, Linda G.; Nothwehr, Faryle K.; Stewart, Ronald E.

In: Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Vol. 103, No. 4, 04.2003, p. 483-487.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Dennis, Leslie K ; Snetselaar, Linda G. ; Nothwehr, Faryle K. ; Stewart, Ronald E. / Developing a scoring method for evaluating dietary methodology in reviews of epidemiologic studies. In: Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 2003 ; Vol. 103, No. 4. pp. 483-487.
@article{746d1c51c02f4f568f703314238895a0,
title = "Developing a scoring method for evaluating dietary methodology in reviews of epidemiologic studies",
abstract = "We examined the quality of dietary assessment used by studies of prostate cancer and dietary fat in an attempt to explain the heterogeneity of their relative risk (RR) estimates. We reviewed the dietary assessment of 39 studies published in English that reported RRs for the association between prostate cancer and dietary fat intake derived from food frequency questionnaires (FFQs). We scored studies based on several objective measures of quality dietary assessment. Studies received no points for characteristics with unclear information. Studies scored 2 points for interviewer-completed FFQs, along with 2 points for quantitative assessments. They were scored 4 points for FFQs with more than 150 items, with an additional point for pretesting and 2 points for validated FFQs. Studies were given 1 point for describing each of the following characteristics: specifying the nutrient database used to convert foods to grams of fat, specifying quality control, attempting to measure dietary intake prior to diagnosis (recalled dietary period), and reporting the time needed to complete the FFQ. We then ranked studies based on their overall score: ″high{"} for a score of 7 or greater out of 15 and ″low{"} for lower scores. Two of the 39 studies that used quantitative methods other than a FFQ were excluded. Of the remaining 37 studies reviewed that used FFQs, only 16 were judged to have a high quality assessment of dietary fat. This review highlights the inconsistency of FFQ used in epidemiologic studies of dietary fat. Such variations in dietary measurement may be reflected in the variation in the magnitude of RRs reported for prostate cancer and dietary fat. The problems identified here include insufficient reporting of the details of dietary assessment, in addition to use of questionnaires with only a few food items to estimate a subject's dietary fat intake. It is imperative that journals include experts in the field of nutrition as reviewers of epidemiologic papers describing diet. J Am Diet Assoc. 2003;103:483-487.",
author = "Dennis, {Leslie K} and Snetselaar, {Linda G.} and Nothwehr, {Faryle K.} and Stewart, {Ronald E.}",
year = "2003",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1053/jada.2003.50081",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "103",
pages = "483--487",
journal = "Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics",
issn = "2212-2672",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Developing a scoring method for evaluating dietary methodology in reviews of epidemiologic studies

AU - Dennis, Leslie K

AU - Snetselaar, Linda G.

AU - Nothwehr, Faryle K.

AU - Stewart, Ronald E.

PY - 2003/4

Y1 - 2003/4

N2 - We examined the quality of dietary assessment used by studies of prostate cancer and dietary fat in an attempt to explain the heterogeneity of their relative risk (RR) estimates. We reviewed the dietary assessment of 39 studies published in English that reported RRs for the association between prostate cancer and dietary fat intake derived from food frequency questionnaires (FFQs). We scored studies based on several objective measures of quality dietary assessment. Studies received no points for characteristics with unclear information. Studies scored 2 points for interviewer-completed FFQs, along with 2 points for quantitative assessments. They were scored 4 points for FFQs with more than 150 items, with an additional point for pretesting and 2 points for validated FFQs. Studies were given 1 point for describing each of the following characteristics: specifying the nutrient database used to convert foods to grams of fat, specifying quality control, attempting to measure dietary intake prior to diagnosis (recalled dietary period), and reporting the time needed to complete the FFQ. We then ranked studies based on their overall score: ″high" for a score of 7 or greater out of 15 and ″low" for lower scores. Two of the 39 studies that used quantitative methods other than a FFQ were excluded. Of the remaining 37 studies reviewed that used FFQs, only 16 were judged to have a high quality assessment of dietary fat. This review highlights the inconsistency of FFQ used in epidemiologic studies of dietary fat. Such variations in dietary measurement may be reflected in the variation in the magnitude of RRs reported for prostate cancer and dietary fat. The problems identified here include insufficient reporting of the details of dietary assessment, in addition to use of questionnaires with only a few food items to estimate a subject's dietary fat intake. It is imperative that journals include experts in the field of nutrition as reviewers of epidemiologic papers describing diet. J Am Diet Assoc. 2003;103:483-487.

AB - We examined the quality of dietary assessment used by studies of prostate cancer and dietary fat in an attempt to explain the heterogeneity of their relative risk (RR) estimates. We reviewed the dietary assessment of 39 studies published in English that reported RRs for the association between prostate cancer and dietary fat intake derived from food frequency questionnaires (FFQs). We scored studies based on several objective measures of quality dietary assessment. Studies received no points for characteristics with unclear information. Studies scored 2 points for interviewer-completed FFQs, along with 2 points for quantitative assessments. They were scored 4 points for FFQs with more than 150 items, with an additional point for pretesting and 2 points for validated FFQs. Studies were given 1 point for describing each of the following characteristics: specifying the nutrient database used to convert foods to grams of fat, specifying quality control, attempting to measure dietary intake prior to diagnosis (recalled dietary period), and reporting the time needed to complete the FFQ. We then ranked studies based on their overall score: ″high" for a score of 7 or greater out of 15 and ″low" for lower scores. Two of the 39 studies that used quantitative methods other than a FFQ were excluded. Of the remaining 37 studies reviewed that used FFQs, only 16 were judged to have a high quality assessment of dietary fat. This review highlights the inconsistency of FFQ used in epidemiologic studies of dietary fat. Such variations in dietary measurement may be reflected in the variation in the magnitude of RRs reported for prostate cancer and dietary fat. The problems identified here include insufficient reporting of the details of dietary assessment, in addition to use of questionnaires with only a few food items to estimate a subject's dietary fat intake. It is imperative that journals include experts in the field of nutrition as reviewers of epidemiologic papers describing diet. J Am Diet Assoc. 2003;103:483-487.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0037676052&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0037676052&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1053/jada.2003.50081

DO - 10.1053/jada.2003.50081

M3 - Article

VL - 103

SP - 483

EP - 487

JO - Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics

JF - Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics

SN - 2212-2672

IS - 4

ER -