DIET@NET: Best Practice Guidelines for Dietary Assessment in Health Research

Overview

Journal BMC Med

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty General Medicine

Date 2017 Nov 16

PMID 29137630

Citations 52

Authors

Janet E Cade

Marisol Warthon-Medina

Salwa Albar

Nisreen A Alwan

Andrew Ness

Mark Roe

Petra A Wark

Katharine Greathead

Victoria J Burley

Paul Finglas

Laura Johnson

Polly Page

Katharine Roberts

Toni Steer

Jozef Hooson

Darren C Greenwood

Sian Robinson

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Dietary assessment is complex, and strategies to select the most appropriate dietary assessment tool (DAT) in epidemiological research are needed. The DIETary Assessment Tool NETwork (DIET@NET) aimed to establish expert consensus on Best Practice Guidelines (BPGs) for dietary assessment using self-report.

Methods: The BPGs were developed using the Delphi technique. Two Delphi rounds were conducted. A total of 131 experts were invited, and of these 65 accepted, with 48 completing Delphi round I and 51 completing Delphi round II. In all, a total of 57 experts from North America, Europe, Asia and Australia commented on the 47 suggested guidelines.

Results: Forty-three guidelines were generated, grouped into the following four stages: Stage I. Define what is to be measured in terms of dietary intake (what? who? and when?); Stage II. Investigate different types of DATs; Stage III. Evaluate existing tools to select the most appropriate DAT by evaluating published validation studies; Stage IV. Think through the implementation of the chosen DAT and consider sources of potential biases.

Conclusions: The Delphi technique consolidated expert views on best practice in assessing dietary intake. The BPGs provide a valuable guide for health researchers to choose the most appropriate dietary assessment method for their studies. These guidelines will be accessible through the Nutritools website, www.nutritools.org .

Citing Articles

NutriDiary, a Smartphone-Based Dietary Record App: Description and Usability Evaluation.

Klasen L, Koch S, Benz M, Conrad J, Alexy U, Blaszkiewicz K JMIR Hum Factors. 2025; 12:e62776.

PMID: 39930984 PMC: 11833184. DOI: 10.2196/62776.

Dietary Quality and Intake of Cancer Caregivers: A Systematic Review of Quantitative Studies and Recommendations for Future Research.

Ayre S, Collins K, Bourdaniotis X, Rose G, Boardman G, Depaune C Cancer Med. 2025; 14(3):e70668.

PMID: 39927738 PMC: 11808751. DOI: 10.1002/cam4.70668.

Dietary Fibre Intake, Adiposity, and Metabolic Disease Risk in Pacific and New Zealand European Women.

Renall N, Merz B, Douwes J, Corbin M, Slater J, Tannock G Nutrients. 2024; 16(19).

PMID: 39408366 PMC: 11479009. DOI: 10.3390/nu16193399.

Plastics in human diets: development and evaluation of the 24-h Dietary Recall - Plastic Exposure and the Dietary Plastics Score.

Harray A, Herrmann S, Papendorf H, Miller C, Vermeersch A, Smith T Front Nutr. 2024; 11:1443792.

PMID: 39360279 PMC: 11444960. DOI: 10.3389/fnut.2024.1443792.

Core Principles and Practices for the Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of Social and Behavior Change for Nutrition in Low- and Middle-Income Contexts with Special Applications for Nutrition-Sensitive Agriculture.

Packard-Winkler M, Golding L, Tewodros T, Faerber E, Webb Girard A Curr Dev Nutr. 2024; 8(8):104414.

PMID: 39224137 PMC: 11367532. DOI: 10.1016/j.cdnut.2024.104414.

References

Hebert J, Clemow L, Pbert L, Ockene I, Ockene J . Social desirability bias in dietary self-report may compromise the validity of dietary intake measures. Int J Epidemiol. 1995; 24(2):389-98. DOI: 10.1093/ije/24.2.389. View

Kipnis V, Freedman L, Brown C, Hartman A, Schatzkin A, Wacholder S . Effect of measurement error on energy-adjustment models in nutritional epidemiology. Am J Epidemiol. 1997; 146(10):842-55. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009202. View

Whitton C, Nicholson S, Roberts C, Prynne C, Pot G, Olson A . National Diet and Nutrition Survey: UK food consumption and nutrient intakes from the first year of the rolling programme and comparisons with previous surveys. Br J Nutr. 2011; 106(12):1899-914. PMC: 3328127. DOI: 10.1017/S0007114511002340. View

Kuhnle G . Nutritional biomarkers for objective dietary assessment. J Sci Food Agric. 2012; 92(6):1145-9. DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.5631. View

Jenab M, Slimani N, Bictash M, Ferrari P, Bingham S . Biomarkers in nutritional epidemiology: applications, needs and new horizons. Hum Genet. 2009; 125(5-6):507-25. DOI: 10.1007/s00439-009-0662-5. View

Slimani N, Bingham S, Runswick S, Ferrari P, Day N, Welch A . Group level validation of protein intakes estimated by 24-hour diet recall and dietary questionnaires against 24-hour urinary nitrogen in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) calibration study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2003; 12(8):784-95. View

Elmstahl S, Gullberg B . Bias in diet assessment methods--consequences of collinearity and measurement errors on power and observed relative risks. Int J Epidemiol. 1997; 26(5):1071-9. DOI: 10.1093/ije/26.5.1071. View

Elmadfa I, Meyer A . Importance of food composition data to nutrition and public health. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2010; 64 Suppl 3:S4-7. DOI: 10.1038/ejcn.2010.202. View

Gleason P, Harris J, Sheean P, Boushey C, Bruemmer B . Publishing nutrition research: validity, reliability, and diagnostic test assessment in nutrition-related research. J Am Diet Assoc. 2010; 110(3):409-19. DOI: 10.1016/j.jada.2009.11.022. View

10.

Rossato S, Fuchs S . Handling random errors and biases in methods used for short-term dietary assessment. Rev Saude Publica. 2014; 48(5):845-50. PMC: 4211566. DOI: 10.1590/s0034-8910.2014048005154. View

11.

Livingstone M, Robson P . Measurement of dietary intake in children. Proc Nutr Soc. 2000; 59(2):279-93. DOI: 10.1017/s0029665100000318. View

12.

Kaaks R, Ferrari P . Dietary intake assessments in epidemiology: can we know what we are measuring?. Ann Epidemiol. 2005; 16(5):377-80. DOI: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2005.06.057. View

13.

Murakami K, Livingstone M . Prevalence and characteristics of misreporting of energy intake in US adults: NHANES 2003-2012. Br J Nutr. 2015; 114(8):1294-303. DOI: 10.1017/S0007114515002706. View

14.

Cobb L, Anderson C, Elliott P, Hu F, Liu K, Neaton J . Methodological issues in cohort studies that relate sodium intake to cardiovascular disease outcomes: a science advisory from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2014; 129(10):1173-86. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000015. View

15.

Ngo J, Engelen A, Molag M, Roesle J, Garcia-Segovia P, Serra-Majem L . A review of the use of information and communication technologies for dietary assessment. Br J Nutr. 2009; 101 Suppl 2:S102-12. DOI: 10.1017/S0007114509990638. View

16.

Lombard M, Steyn N, Charlton K, Senekal M . Application and interpretation of multiple statistical tests to evaluate validity of dietary intake assessment methods. Nutr J. 2015; 14:40. PMC: 4471918. DOI: 10.1186/s12937-015-0027-y. View

17.

Black A . Critical evaluation of energy intake using the Goldberg cut-off for energy intake:basal metabolic rate. A practical guide to its calculation, use and limitations. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2000; 24(9):1119-30. DOI: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0801376. View

18.

Ma Y, Olendzki B, Pagoto S, Hurley T, Magner R, Ockene I . Number of 24-hour diet recalls needed to estimate energy intake. Ann Epidemiol. 2009; 19(8):553-9. PMC: 2803049. DOI: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2009.04.010. View

19.

Palaniappan U, Cue R, Payette H, Gray-Donald K . Implications of day-to-day variability on measurements of usual food and nutrient intakes. J Nutr. 2003; 133(1):232-5. DOI: 10.1093/jn/133.1.232. View

20.

Merchant A, Dehghan M . Food composition database development for between country comparisons. Nutr J. 2006; 5:2. PMC: 1388230. DOI: 10.1186/1475-2891-5-2. View