4.5 Article

Validation of a pre-coded food record for infants and young children

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION
Volume 66, Issue 1, Pages 91-96

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ejcn.2011.133

Keywords

pre-coded food record; validation; energy intake; doubly labeled water; energy expenditure; dietary assessment

Funding

  1. Danish Directorate for Food, Fisheries and Agri Business

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background/Objectives: To assess the validity of a 7-day pre-coded food record (PFR) method in 9-month-old infants against metabolizable energy intake (ME(DLW)) measured by doubly labeled water (DLW); additionally to compare PFR with a 7-day weighed food record (WFR) in 9-month-old infants and 36-month-old children. Subjects/Methods: The study population consisted of 36 infants (age: 9.03 +/- 0.2 months) and 36 young children (age: 36.1 +/- 0.3 months) enrolled in a cross-over design of 7 consecutive days PFR vs 7 consecutive days WFR. Children were randomly assigned to one method during week 1, crossing over to the alternative method in week 2. Total energy expenditure (TEE) and ME(DLW) were obtained in the 9-month-old infants using the DLW technique for 7 days while recording with PFR. Results: For the 9-month-old group, PFR showed a mean bias of + 726 kJ/day, equivalent to 24%, (P<0.0001) compared with ME(DLW) (n = 29). Using WFR as the reference in this group no between-method differences were found for energy, fat and carbohydrate. Energy intake in the 36-month-old children was 12% higher in the PFR vs WFR (P<0.0001), and protein plus total fat intake were overestimated with the PFR (P = 0.008, P<0.0001, respectively). Conclusions: The study indicates that the PFR may be a valuable tool for measuring energy, energy-yielding nutrients and foods in groups of 9-month-olds infants and 36-month-olds young children. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2012) 66, 91-96; doi:10.1038/ejcn.2011.133; published online 10 August 2011

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available