4.5 Article

Validity of reported energy expenditure and reported intake of energy, protein, sodium and potassium in rheumatoid arthritis patients in a dietary intervention study

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION
卷 59, 期 2, 页码 238-245

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602064

关键词

rheumatoid arthritis; Mediterranean diet; diet history interview; biological markers; doubly labelled water; energy expenditure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: The aim of the study was to validate a diet history interview (DHI) method and a 3-day activity registration (AR) with biological markers. Subjects and study design: The reported dietary intake of 33 rheumatoid arthritis patients (17 patients on a Mediterranean-type diet and 16 patients on a control diet) participating in a dietary intervention study was assessed using the DHI method. The total energy expenditure (TEE), estimated by a 3-day AR, was used to validate the energy intake (EI). For nine subjects the activity registration was also validated by means of the doubly labelled water (DLW) method. The excretion of nitrogen, sodium and potassium in 24-h urine samples was used to validate the intake of protein, sodium and potassium. Results: There was no significant difference between the EI and the TEE estimated by the activity registration or between the intake of protein, sodium and potassium and their respective biological markers. However, in general, the AR underestimated the TEE compared to the DLW method. No significant differences were found between the subjects in the Mediterranean diet group and the control diet group regarding the relationship between the reported intakes and the biological markers. Conclusion: The DHI could capture the dietary intake fairly well, and the dietary assessment was not biased by the dietary intervention. The AR showed a bias towards underestimation when compared to the DLW method. This illustrates the importance of valid biological markers.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据