A systematic review of reviews identifying UK validated dietary assessment tools for inclusion on an interactive guided website for researchers: www.nutritools.org

• Published in: Critical reviews in food science and nutrition Vol. 60; no. 8; pp. 1265 - 1289
• Main Authors: Hooson (Jzh), Jozef, Hutchinson (Jyh), Jayne, Warthon-Medina, Marisol, Hancock, Neil, Greathead, Katharine, Knowles, Bethany, Vargas-Garcia, Elisa, Gibson, Lauren E., Bush, Linda A., Margetts, Barrie, Robinson, Sian, Ness, Andy, Alwan, Nisreen A., Wark, Petra A., Roe, Mark, Finglas, Paul, Steer, Toni, Page, Polly, Johnson, Laura, Roberts, Katharine, Amoutzopoulos, Birdem, Burley, Victoria J., Greenwood, Darren C., Cade, Janet E.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Taylor & Francis 27-04-2020; Taylor & Francis Ltd
• Subjects: Biomarkers; Children; Diet; Diet - standards; Diet records; Dietary Assessment; Epidemiology; Humans; Internet; Limits of Agreement; Nutrients; Nutrition Assessment; Reproducibility of Results; Research Personnel; Researchers; Review Literature as Topic; Reviews; Study Characteristics; Systematic Review; United Kingdom; Validation studies; Web sites; Websites; United Kingdom; United Kingdom > UK; Limits of Agreement; Diet records; Study Characteristics; Systematic Review; Dietary Assessment; Validation studies
• ISSN: 1040-8398; 1549-7852
• DOI: 10.1080/10408398.2019.1566207

Health researchers may struggle to choose suitable validated dietary assessment tools (DATs) for their target population. The aim of this review was to identify and collate information on validated UK DATs and validation studies for inclusion on a website to support researchers to choose appropriate DATs.
A systematic review of reviews of DATs was undertaken. DATs validated in UK populations were extracted from the studies identified. A searchable website was designed to display these data. Additionally, mean differences and limits of agreement between test and comparison methods were summarized by a method, weighting by sample size.
Over 900 validation results covering 5 life stages, 18 nutrients, 6 dietary assessment methods, and 9 validation method types were extracted from 63 validated DATs which were identified from 68 reviews. These were incorporated into
www.nutritools.org
. Limits of agreement were determined for about half of validations. Thirty four DATs were FFQs. Only 17 DATs were validated against biomarkers, and only 19 DATs were validated in infant/children/adolescents.
The interactive
www.nutritools.org
website holds extensive validation data identified from this review and can be used to guide researchers to critically compare and choose a suitable DAT for their research question, leading to improvement of nutritional epidemiology research.