The sensitivity and specificity of the Goldberg cut-off for EI:BMR for identifying diet reports of poor validity

Black, A E

doi:10.1038/sj.ejcn.1600971

Cited by 314 publications

(323 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

317

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Further, the rate of underreporting was higher in men than in women. In a previous analysis of individual data from 21 studies, in contrast, the proportion of underreporters did not statistically differ between sexes (Black, 2000). In our previous study using semi-weighed diet records in 4 days Â 4 seasons, the mean value of the ratio of rEI to BMR estimated from sex, age and body weight was not statistically different between sexes (Okubo et al, 2006).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 63%

Validation of self-reported energy intake by a self-administered diet history questionnaire using the doubly labeled water method in 140 Japanese adults

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To validate reported energy intake (rEI) with a self-administered diet history questionnaire (DHQ) against total energy expenditure (TEE) by the doubly labeled water (DLW) method. Subjects: A total of 140 healthy Japanese adults (67 men and 73 women) aged 20-59 years living in four areas in Japan. Methods: Energy intake was assessed twice with DHQ over a 1-month period before and after TEE measurement (rEI DHQ1 and rEI DHQ2 , respectively). TEE was measured by DLW during 2 weeks (TEE DLW ). Results: Mean rEI DHQ1 was lower than those of TEE DLW by 1.972.4 MJ/day (16.4%, Po0.001) for men and 0.671.9 MJ/day (6.0%, Po0.01) for women. In men and women together, 62 subjects (44%) were defined as underreporters (rEI DHQ1 /TEE DLW o0.84), 58 (41%) as acceptable reporters (0.84-1.16) and 20 (14%) as over-reporters (41.16). Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.34 for men and 0.22 for women. After adjustment for the dietary and non-dietary factors related to rEI DHQ1 /TEE DLW , the correlation coefficient improved to 0.42 and 0.37, respectively. Conclusion: The energy intake assessed with DHQ correlated low to modestly with TEE measured by DLW. In addition, DHQ underestimated energy intake at a group level. Caution is needed when energy intake was evaluated by DHQ at both individual and group levels.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 63%

Validation of self-reported energy intake by a self-administered diet history questionnaire using the doubly labeled water method in 140 Japanese adults

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, this technique was devised to evaluate the overall bias towards under-reporting at the group level. Although its use has been extended to identify under-reporting at the individual level, the cut-off is limited by low sensitivity, as it only identifies about 50% of underreporters (Black, 2000b). Furthermore, it can make no distinction between varying degrees of mis-reporting.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An evaluation of the sensitivity and specificity of energy expenditure measured by heart rate and the Goldberg cut-off for energy intake: basal metabolic rate for identifying mis-reporting of energy intake by adults and children: a retrospective analysis

et al. 2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To identify adults and children as under-(UR), acceptable (AR), or over-reporters (OR) of energy intake (EI) using energy expenditure measured by doubly labelled water (DLW) (EE DLW ), and to use this as a reference to determine the sensitivity and specificity of (i) EE measured by heart rate (EE HR ), and (ii) the Goldberg cut-off technique for classifying subjects into the same categories. Design: Retrospective analysis of a dataset comprising concurrent measurements of EE DLW , EE HR , basal metabolic rate (BMR), and EI by weighed record (EI WR ) on 14 adults and 36 children. EI by diet history (EI DH ) was also measured in the children only. EI WR :EE DLW provided the reference definition of subjects as UR, AR or OR. Three strategies for classifying mis-reporters based on EE HR and Goldberg cut-offs were then explored. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated respectively as the proportion of UR and non-UR correctly identified.Results: Approximately 80% of all subjects were AR. For EI WR and EI DH respectively, the sensitivity of EE HR was 0.50 and 1.00, and specificity was 0.98 and 1.00. Although designating subjects as having low, medium or high activity levels (EE HR :BMR meas ) and calculating cut-offs based on appropriate WHO physical activity level PALs did not change sensitivity, specificity dropped to 0.98 (EI WR ) and 0.97 (EI DH ). Cut-offs based on a PAL of 1.55 reduced sensitivity to 0.33 (EI WR ) and 0.00 (EI DH ), but specificity remained unchanged. The sensitivity of all cut-offs based on physical activity level (PALs) for EI WR was 0.50 (adults) and 0.25 (children). Conclusions: If the precision of EE HR was improved, it may be useful for identifying mis-reporters of EI.

show abstract

“…The confidence limits of the Goldberg cut-off are wider than those for the direct validators and cannot identify as many under-reporters. Further, the sensitivity of the Goldberg cut-off for identifying underreporters among those with high energy requirements is limited (Black, 2000b).…”

Section: Comparison Of Validation Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation of dietary intakes measured by diet history against24 h urinary nitrogen excretion and energy expenditure measuredby the doubly-labelled water method in middle-aged women

Black¹,

Welch²,

Bingham³

2000

Br J Nutr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A diet history method for estimating energy and N intakes was validated against 24 h urinary N excretion and energy expenditure measured by the doubly-labelled water (DLW) method. Fortyeight women aged 50-65 years were studied over 1 year. Weighed diet records from 4 d and two 24 h urine collections, for measurement of urinary N excretion, were obtained in each of four seasons. At the end of the year, a diet history was obtained, BMR was measured by whole-body calorimetry, and, in sixteen women, total energy expenditure (EE) was measured by DLW. Energy intake (EI) and N intake (NI) were calculated using food tables. Using weighed records and diet history respectively mean NI were 11⋅21 (SD 2⋅09) g and 11⋅47 (SD 2⋅40) g (NS) and EI were 8⋅08 (SD 1⋅54) MJ and 8⋅20 (SD 1⋅86) MJ (NS). Mean urine N : NI and EI : BMR values indicated bias to under-reporting by weighed record and diet history techniques in some individuals, but there was no significant difference between these measures at the group level. The Pearson correlation coefficient (r) for urine N v. NI was 0⋅81 for the weighed record and 0⋅38 for the diet history. The correlation of EE v. EI was r 0⋅48 for weighed record and r 0⋅11 for diet history. In this study the diet history gave the same estimate of mean intake, but the weighed record appeared to perform better in ranking individuals. Diet history: Diet record: ValidationThe diet history method of assessing dietary intake is favoured for two reasons. First, as a retrospective questionnaire method, it places less burden on subjects than do prospective diet records. Second, it is believed to obtain a better measure of long-term habitual intake than diet records, which, of necessity, record intake on a limited number of days. The debate over the respective merits of the weighed diet record and the diet history is a long one and many studies over several decades have compared their relative validity. On balance the diet history tends to obtain higher mean energy intakes (EI) (see reviews by Bingham, 1987;Black et al. 1991). However, without external validation such studies have been unable to reach a firm conclusion as to which, if either, is valid in absolute terms.A valid dietary assessment should give an estimate of mean intake that is close to the true intake and also be able to rank individuals correctly for intake within acceptable limits of precision. The two requirements do not necessarily go together. For example, a dataset of valid 24 h recalls would give a valid estimate of mean intake but could not rank individuals correctly for habitual intake. A diet record of sufficient length to measure habitual intake might rank individuals correctly but give an invalid estimate of mean intake due to systematic bias across all subjects. If random errors are large and if systematic bias is variable across individuals, then ranking will also be poor. Studies of relative validity indicate whether one method gives a higher intake than another, and comparison with expected energy requirements can help determine ...

show abstract

The sensitivity and specificity of the Goldberg cut-off for EI:BMR for identifying diet reports of poor validity

Cited by 314 publications

References 33 publications

Validation of self-reported energy intake by a self-administered diet history questionnaire using the doubly labeled water method in 140 Japanese adults

Validation of self-reported energy intake by a self-administered diet history questionnaire using the doubly labeled water method in 140 Japanese adults

An evaluation of the sensitivity and specificity of energy expenditure measured by heart rate and the Goldberg cut-off for energy intake: basal metabolic rate for identifying mis-reporting of energy intake by adults and children: a retrospective analysis

Validation of dietary intakes measured by diet history against24 h urinary nitrogen excretion and energy expenditure measuredby the doubly-labelled water method in middle-aged women

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About