In the second paragraph on the third page of Saito et al.( Reference Saito, Imai and Htun 1 ), there was a minor duplication of text from an article by Murakami et al.( Reference Murakami, Livingstone, Okubo and Sasaki 2 ). The authors apologise for this error.
Original Text( Reference Saito, Imai and Htun 1 ):
The utility of this household-based dietary record to estimate food and nutrient intakes at the individual level has been examined in Japanese subjects(14). Dietary intakes among thirty-two young female dietetic students estimated by this 1-d household dietary record by their mothers were compared with those estimated by a 1-d weighed dietary record, which was independently conducted by the young students themselves. Mean differences between intakes estimated by the two methods were 6·2% for energy, 5·7% for protein, 6·7% for fat and 6·3% for carbohydrate, whereas Pearson’s correlation coefficients were 0·90 for energy, 0·89 for protein, 0·91 for total fat and 0·90 for carbohydrate.
Revised text:
The usefulness of the household-based dietary record method applied in the NNS and NHNS has been examined previously in young Japanese women(14). Dietary intakes were recorded by 32 female dietetic students and compared to 1-d household-based dietary records completed by their mothers. The mean differences between intakes estimated by the two methods were 6·2%, 5·7%, 6·7% and 6·3% for energy, protein, fat and carbohydrate, respectively. Pearson correlation coefficients were energy 0·90, protein 0·89, fat 0·91 and carbohydrate 0·90.
