Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Comparison of approaches to correct intake–health associations for FFQ measurement error using a duplicate recovery biomarker and a duplicate 24 h dietary recall as reference method

  • Anouk Geelen (a1), Olga W Souverein (a1), Maria C Busstra (a1), Jeanne HM de Vries (a1) and Pieter van ‘t Veer (a1)...

Abstract

Objective

To illustrate the impact of intake-related bias in FFQ and 24 h recall (24hR), and correlated errors between these methods, on intake–health associations.

Design

Dietary intake was assessed by a 180-item semi-quantitative FFQ and two 24hR. Urinary N and urinary K were estimated from two 24 h urine samples. We compared four scenarios to correct associations for errors in an FFQ estimating protein and K intakes.

Setting

Wageningen, The Netherlands.

Subjects

Fifty-nine men and fifty-eight women aged 45–65 years.

Results

For this FFQ, measurement error weakened a true relative risk of 2·0 to 1·4 for protein and 1·5 for K. As compared with calibration to duplicate recovery biomarkers (i.e. the preferred scenario 1), estimating a validity coefficient using this duplicate biomarker resulted in overcorrected associations, caused by intake-related bias in the FFQ (scenario 2). The correction factor based on a triad using biomarkers and 24hR was hampered by this intake-related bias and by correlated errors between FFQ and 24hR, and in this population resulted in a nearly perfect correction for protein but an overcorrection for K (scenario 3). When the 24hR was used for calibration, only a small correction was done, due to correlated errors between the methods and intake-related bias in the 24hR (scenario 4).

Conclusions

Calibration to a gold standard reference method is the preferred approach to correct intake–health associations for FFQ measurement error. If it is not possible to do so, using the 24hR as reference method only partly removes the errors, but may result in improved intake–health associations.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Comparison of approaches to correct intake–health associations for FFQ measurement error using a duplicate recovery biomarker and a duplicate 24 h dietary recall as reference method
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Comparison of approaches to correct intake–health associations for FFQ measurement error using a duplicate recovery biomarker and a duplicate 24 h dietary recall as reference method
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Comparison of approaches to correct intake–health associations for FFQ measurement error using a duplicate recovery biomarker and a duplicate 24 h dietary recall as reference method
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Corresponding author

*Corresponding author: Email anouk.geelen@wur.nl

References

Hide All
1. Schatzkin, A, Subar, AF, Moore, S et al. (2009) Observational epidemiologic studies of nutrition and cancer: the next generation (with better observation). Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 18, 10261032.
2. Bingham, SA, Luben, R, Welch, A et al. (2003) Are imprecise methods obscuring a relation between fat and breast cancer? Lancet 362, 212214.
3. Rosner, B, Willett, WC & Spiegelman, D (1989) Correction of logistic regression relative risk estimates and confidence intervals for systematic within-person measurement error. Stat Med 8, 10511069.
4. Spiegelman, D, McDermott, A & Rosner, B (1997) Regression calibration method for correcting measurement-error bias in nutritional epidemiology. Am J Clin Nutr 65, 4 Suppl., 1179S1186S.
5. Kaaks, RJ (1997) Biochemical markers as additional measurements in studies of the accuracy of dietary questionnaire measurements: conceptual issues. Am J Clin Nutr 65, 4 Suppl., 1232S1239S.
6. Jenab, M, Slimani, N, Bictash, M et al. (2009) Biomarkers in nutritional epidemiology: applications, needs and new horizons. Hum Genet 125, 507525.
7. Kipnis, V, Subar, AF, Midthune, D et al. (2003) Structure of dietary measurement error: results of the OPEN biomarker study. Am J Epidemiol 158, 1421.
8. Crispim, SP, de Vries, JH, Geelen, A et al. (2011) Two non-consecutive 24 h recalls using EPIC-Soft software are sufficiently valid for comparing protein and potassium intake between five European centres – results from the European Food Consumption Validation (EFCOVAL) study. Br J Nutr 105, 447458.
9. Siebelink, E, Geelen, A & de Vries, JH (2011) Self-reported energy intake by FFQ compared with actual energy intake to maintain body weight in 516 adults. Br J Nutr 106, 274281.
10. Netherlands Nutrition Centre (1998) Zo eet Nederland 1998. The Hague: Netherlands Nutrition Centre (in Dutch).
11. Subar, AF, Thompson, FE, Smith, AF et al. (1995) Improving food frequency questionnaires: a qualitative approach using cognitive interviewing. J Am Diet Assoc 95, 781788.
12. NEVO-TABEL (2006) Nederlandse Voedings Middelen Tabel (Dutch Food Composition Tables). The Hague: Netherlands Nutrition Centre.
13. Crispim, SP, Geelen, A, Souverein, OW et al. (2011) Biomarker-based evaluation of two 24-h recalls for comparing usual fish, fruit and vegetable intakes across European centers in the EFCOVAL Study. Eur J Clin Nutr 65, Suppl. 1, S38S47.
14. Slimani, N, Deharveng, G, Charrondiere, RU et al. (1999) Structure of the standardized computerized 24-h diet recall interview used as reference method in the 22 centers participating in the EPIC project. European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 58, 251266.
15. Slimani, N, Ferrari, P, Ocke, M et al. (2000) Standardization of the 24-hour diet recall calibration method used in the European prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition (EPIC): general concepts and preliminary results. Eur J Clin Nutr 54, 900917.
16. Bingham, SA (2003) Urine nitrogen as a biomarker for the validation of dietary protein intake. J Nutr 133, Suppl. 3, 921S924S.
17. Bingham, SA & Cummings, JH (1985) Urine nitrogen as an independent validatory measure of dietary intake: a study of nitrogen balance in individuals consuming their normal diet. Am J Clin Nutr 42, 12761289.
18. Holbrook, JT, Patterson, KY, Bodner, JE et al. (1984) Sodium and potassium intake and balance in adults consuming self-selected diets. Am J Clin Nutr 40, 786793.
19. Tasevska, N, Runswick, SA & Bingham, SA (2006) Urinary potassium is as reliable as urinary nitrogen for use as a recovery biomarker in dietary studies of free living individuals. J Nutr 136, 13341340.
20. Kaaks, R, Ferrari, P, Ciampi, A et al. (2002) Uses and limitations of statistical accounting for random error correlations, in the validation of dietary questionnaire assessments. Public Health Nutr 5, 969976.
21. Ocke, MC & Kaaks, RJ (1997) Biochemical markers as additional measurements in dietary validity studies: application of the method of triads with examples from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. Am J Clin Nutr 65, 4 Suppl., 1240S1245S.
22. Kipnis, V, Midthune, D, Freedman, L et al. (2002) Bias in dietary-report instruments and its implications for nutritional epidemiology. Public Health Nutr 5, 915923.
23. Plummer, M & Kaaks, R (2003) Commentary: an OPEN assessment of dietary measurement errors. Int J Epidemiol 32, 10621063.
24. Slimani, N, Bingham, S, Runswick, S et al. (2003) 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 12, 784795.
25. Kipnis, V, Midthune, D, Buckman, DW et al. (2009) Modeling data with excess zeros and measurement error: application to evaluating relationships between episodically consumed foods and health outcomes. Biometrics 65, 10031010.
26. Tooze, JA, Midthune, D, Dodd, KW et al. (2006) A new statistical method for estimating the usual intake of episodically consumed foods with application to their distribution. J Am Diet Assoc 106, 15751587.

Keywords

Related content

Powered by UNSILO

Comparison of approaches to correct intake–health associations for FFQ measurement error using a duplicate recovery biomarker and a duplicate 24 h dietary recall as reference method

  • Anouk Geelen (a1), Olga W Souverein (a1), Maria C Busstra (a1), Jeanne HM de Vries (a1) and Pieter van ‘t Veer (a1)...

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.