Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:23:13.952Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 December 2008

P Ferrari ,
N Slimani ,
A Ciampi ,
A Trichopoulou ,
A Naska ,
C Lauria ,
F Veglia ,
HB Buenode-Mesquita ,
MC Ocke  and
M Brustad
...Show all authors
P Ferrari*
Affiliation:
Unit of Nutrition and Cancer, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 150 cours Albert-Thomas, 69372 Lyon Cedex 08, France
N Slimani
Affiliation:
Unit of Nutrition and Cancer, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 150 cours Albert-Thomas, 69372 Lyon Cedex 08, France
A Ciampi
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
A Trichopoulou
Affiliation:
Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, School of Medicine, University of Athens, Greece
A Naska
Affiliation:
Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, School of Medicine, University of Athens, Greece
C Lauria
Affiliation:
Cancer Registry, ‘Civile – M.P. Arezzo’ Hosptial, Ragusa, Italy
F Veglia
Affiliation:
Institute for Scientific Interchange Foundation, Turin, Italy
HB Buenode-Mesquita
Affiliation:
Centre of Nutrition and Health, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands
MC Ocke
Affiliation:
Centre of Nutrition and Health, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands
M Brustad
Affiliation:
Institute of Community Medicine, University of Tromsø, Norway
T Braaten
Affiliation:
Institute of Community Medicine, University of Tromsø, Norway
M José Tormo
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology, Regional Council of Health and Social Affairs, Murcia, Spain
P Amiano
Affiliation:
Public Health Division of Gipuzkoa, Health Department of the Basque Government, San Sebastian, Spain
I Mattisson
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Surgery and Orthopaedics, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden
G Johansson
Affiliation:
Department of Nutritional Research, University of Umeå, Sweden
A Welch
Affiliation:
Institute of Public Health, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, UK
G Davey
Affiliation:
Cancer Research UK, Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, UK
K Overvad
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology and Social Medicine, University of Aarhus, Denmark
A Tjønneland
Affiliation:
Department of Cancer Epidemiology, Danish Cancer Society, Copenhagen, Denmark
F Clavel-Chapelon
Affiliation:
INSERM, U521, Institute Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France
A Thiebaut
Affiliation:
INSERM, U521, Institute Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France
J Linseisen
Affiliation:
Division of Clinical Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Centre, Heidelberg, Germany
H Boeing
Affiliation:
German Institute of Human Nutrition, Potsdam-Rehbrücke, Germany
B Hemon
Affiliation:
Unit of Nutrition and Cancer, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 150 cours Albert-Thomas, 69372 Lyon Cedex 08, France
E Riboli
Affiliation:
Unit of Nutrition and Cancer, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 150 cours Albert-Thomas, 69372 Lyon Cedex 08, France
*
*Corresponding author: Email [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
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 (EI) 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 were less likely to underestimate energy intake: ORs were 0.58 (95% CI 0.45–0.77) and 0.74 (95% CI 0.63–0.88) for age (≥ 65 years vs. < 50 years). Special diet and day of the week showed strong effects.

Conclusion:

EI tends to be underestimated in the vast majority of the EPIC centres, although to varying degrees; at the aggregate level most centres were below the expected reference value of 1.55. Underreporting seems to be more prevalent among women than men in the EPIC calibration sample. The hypothesis that BMI (or weight) and age are causally related to underreporting seems to be confirmed in the present work. This introduces further complexity in the within-group (centre or country) and between-group calibration of dietary questionnaire measurements to deattenuate the diet—disease relationship.

Keywords

EPICCalibration24-Hour dietary recoilUnderreportingMeasurement errorsBody mass index
Type
Research Article
Information
Public Health Nutrition , Volume 5 , Issue 6b , December 2002 , pp. 1329 - 1345
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2002

References

1Riboli, E, Kaaks, R. The EPIC Project: rationale and study design. European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. Int. J. Epidemiol. 1997; 26(Suppl. 1): S6–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2Riboli, E, Hunt, KJ, Slimani, N, Ferrari, P, Norat, T, Fahey, M et al. European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutri tion (EPIC): study populations and data collection. Public Health Nutr. 2002; 5(6B): 1113–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Willett, W. An overview of issues related to the correction of non-differential exposure measurement error in epidemiologic studies. Stat.Med. 1989; 8: 1031–40, discussion 1071–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4Rosner, B, Willett, WC, Spiegelman, D. Correction of logistic regression relative risk estimates and confidence intervals for systematic within-person measurement error. Stat. Med. 1989; 8: 1051–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Bingham, SA, Cassidy, A, Cole, TJ, Welch, A, Runswick, SA, Black, AE et al. Validation of weighed records and other methods of dietary assessment using the 24 h urine nitrogen technique and other biological markers. Br.J. Nutr. 1995; 73: 531–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6Black, AE, Bingham, SA, Johansson, G, Coward, WA. Validation of dietary intakes of protein and energy against 24 hour urinary N and DLW energy expenditure in middle-aged women, retired men and post-obese subjects: comparisons with validation against presumed energy requirements. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 1997; 51: 405–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Riboli, E, Kaaks, R. The challenge of multi-center cohort studies in the search for diet and cancer links [invited commentary). Am.J. Epidemiol. 2000; 151: 371–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8Slimani, N, Deharveng, G, Charrondière, RU, van Kappel, AL, Ocké, MC, Welch, A et al. 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. Meth. Programs Biomed. 1999; 58: 251–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Black, AE, Welch, AA, Bingham, SA. Validation of dietary intakes measured by diet history against 24 h urinary nitrogen excretion and energy expenditure measured by the doubly-labelled water method in middle-aged women. Br.J. Nutr. 2000; 83: 341–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10Goldberg, GR, Black, AE, Jebb, SA, Cole, TJ, Murgatroyd, PR, Coward, WA, Prentice, AM. Critical evaluation of energy 1341 intake data using fundamental principles of energy physiology: 1. Derivation of cut-off limits to identify under-recording. Eur.J. Clin. Nutr. 1991; 45: 569–81.Google Scholar
11Black, AE. Critical evaluation of energy intake using the Goldberg cut-off for energy intake: basal metabolic rate. A practical guide to its calculation, use and limitations. Int. J. Obes. Relat. Metab. Disord. 2000; 24: 1119–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12Kaaks, R, Riboli, E, van Staveren, W.Sample size requirements for calibration studies of dietary intake measurements in prospective cohort investigations. Am. J. Epidemiol. 1995; 142: 557–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Slimani, N, Kaaks, R, Ferrari, P, Casagrande, C, Clavel-Chapelon, F, Lotze, G et al. European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) calibration study: rationale, design and population characteristics. Public Health Nutr. 2002; 5(6B): 1125–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Charrondière, UR, Vignat, J, Møller, A, Ireland, J, Becker, W, Church, S et al. The European Nutrient Database (ENDB) for nutritional epidemiology. J. Food Comp. Anal. 2002; 15(4): 435–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15Deharveng, G, Charrondière, UR, Slimani, N, Southgate, DA, Riboli, E.Comparison of nutrients in the food composition tables available in the nine European countries participating in EPIC. European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. Eur.J. Clin. Nutr. 1999; 53: 60–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16Schofield, WN, Scofield, C, James, WPT.Basal metabolic rate. Hum. Nutr. Clin. Nutr. 1985; 39C(Suppl. 1): 1–96.Google Scholar
17Haftenberger, M, Schuit, AJ, Tormo, MJ, Boeing, H, Wareham, N, Bueno-de-Mesquita, HB et al. Physical activity of subjects aged 50-64 years involved in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC). Public Health Nutr. 2002; 5(6B): 1163–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18Black, AE. The sensitivity and the specificity of the Goldberg cut-off for EI:BMR for identifying diet reports of poor validity. Eur.J. Clin. Nutr. 2000; 51: 405–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19Gnardellis, C, Boulou, C, Trichopoulou, A. Magnitude, determinants and impact of under-reporting of energy intake in a cohort study in Greece. Public Health Nutr. 1998; 1: 131–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20SAS Institute, Inc. SAS/STAT User's Guide: Version 8.2. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc., 2001.Google Scholar
21Slimani, N, Bingham, S, Runswick, S, Ferrari, P, Day, N, Welch, A et al. Group level validation of protein intakes estimated by 24-hour diet recall and dietary questionnaires against 24-hour urinary nitrogen in the EPIC calibration study. Submitted for publication.Google Scholar
22Zhang, J, Temme, EH, Kesteloot, H. Sex ratio of total energy intake in adults: an analysis of dietary surveys. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 1999; 53: 542–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23Hebert, JR, Ma, Y, Clemow, L, Ockene, IS, Sapetia, G, Stane, EJ 3rd et al. Gender differences in social desirability and social approval bias in dietary self-report. Am. J. Epidemiol. 1997; 146: 1046–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24Black, AE, Prentice, AM, Goldberg, GR, Jebb, SA, Bingham, SA, Livingstone, MB et al. Measurements of total energy expenditure provide insights into the validity of dietary measurements of energy intake. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 1993; 93: 572–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25Voss, S, Kroke, A, Klipstein-Grobusch, K, Boeing, H.Is macronutrient composition of dietary intake data affected by underreporting? Results from the EPIC—Potsdam Study. European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. Eur.J Clin. Nutr. 1998; 52: 119–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26Bandini, LG, Schoeller, DA, Cyr, HN, Dietz, WH. Validity of reported energy intake in obese and nonobese adolescents. Am.J. Clin. Nutr. 1990; 52: 421–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27Heitmann, BL.The influence of fatness, weight change, slimming history and other lifestyle variables on diet reporting in Danish men and women aged 35–65 years. Int.J Obes. 1993; 17: 329–36.Google ScholarPubMed
28Heitmann, BL, Lissner, L.Dietary underreporting by obese individuals – is it specific or non- specific? Br. Med.J. 1995; 311: 986–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29Kaaks, R, Riboli, E, van Staveren, W.Calibration of dietary intake measurements in prospective cohort studies. Am. J. Epidemiol. 1995; 142: 548–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30Kaaks, R, Riboli, E.Validation and calibration of dietary intake measurements in the EPIC project: methodological considerations. European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. Int.J. Epidemiol. 1997; 26(Suppl. 1): S15–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31Kipnis, V, Carroll, RJ, Freedman, LS, Li, L.A new dietary measurement error model and its implications for the estimation of relative risk: application to four calibration studies. Am.J. Epidemiol. 1999; 150: 642–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32Prentice, R.Measurement error and results from analytic epidemiology: dietary fat and breast cancer. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 1996; 88: 1738–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33Kipnis, V, Ferrari, P, Riboli, E, Slimani, N, Midthune, D, Carroll, RJ et al. Attenuation (bias towards the null) in risk and its dependence on body mass index: results from calibration studies using the urinary nitrogen excretion biomarker. Manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar