Evaluation of under- and overreporting of energy intake in the 24-hour diet recalls in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC)

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 (El) 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 (CD 2.91-4.26) in men and 4.80 (95% CI 4.11-5.6l) in women, indicating that overweight subjects are significantly more likely to underestimate energy intake than subjects in the bottom BMI category. Older people 'Corresponding

Dietary intake and food sources of added sugar in the Australian population

“…As PAL data were not available from the survey, we assigned a standard PAL of 1·55 to all respondents as per the advice of the Australian Bureau of Statistics (20) and similar to previous studies (27)(28)(29) . Participants with an energy intake:BMR ratio outside the 95 % CI were excluded from the analysis.…”

Cooking of meat and fish in Europe—results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC)

“…With adjustment for energy intake, total meat intake results increased distinctly in these EPIC centres . The topic of underreporting in the EPIC calibration study will be discussed in a special paper (Ferrari et al, 2002).…”

Fruit and vegetable intake and prostate cancer risk in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC)

“…A total of 367,898 women were excluded. We also excluded men who were diagnosed with cancer (except non‐melanoma skin cancer) before recruitment ( n  = 3,972), those with missing dates of prostate cancer diagnosis ( n  = 14) or follow‐up ( n  = 1,433), those aged <20 years at recruitment ( n  = 2), as well as those who had no non‐dietary or dietary data, or men with an extreme energy intake in relation to estimated requirement ( n  = 5,766) 16. Finally, a total of 142,239 men were available for analysis.…”