Comparison of Methods to Account for Implausible Reporting of Energy Intake in Epidemiologic Studies
Comparison of Methods to Account for Implausible Reporting of Energy Intake in Epidemiologic Studies
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/aje/kwu308
复制
发表时间：
2015-02-15
影响因子：
5
通讯作者：
Willett, Walter C.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Rhee, Jinnie J.;Sampson, Laura;Willett, Walter C.
在门德斯等人最近发表在《美国流行病学杂志》上的一篇文章中。(Am J Epidinool.)2011年；173(4)：448458)，使用其他方法排除不合理的能量摄入导致饮食和身体质量指数之间的横截面关联显著不同，而使用更简单的推荐标准(3,500千卡/天)没有产生任何有意义的变化。然而，这些发现可能是由于基于体重的排除，体重是体重指数的主要决定因素。使用护士健康研究(1990)中52,110名妇女的数据，我们复制了Mendez等人的横断面研究结果。并将推荐方法与2种权重相关替代方法(Goldberg法和预测总能量消耗法)的计算结果进行了比较。然后使用同样的3个排除标准来前瞻性地检查饮食变量与BMI变化的关系，而BMI变化不是体重的直接函数。使用这3种方法，我们发现了类似的关联。在使用饮食因素生物标志物的单独横断面分析中，我们发现，使用排除的三种方法，脂肪酸(n=439)和类胡萝卜素和视黄醇(n=1,293)的摄入量存在类似的相关性。这些结果并不支持一般的结论，即使用基于替代方法的排除标准可能比推荐的排除方法更有优势。
In a recent article in the American Journal of Epidemiology by Mendez et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2011; 173(4):448458), the use of alternative approaches to the exclusion of implausible energy intakes led to significantly different cross-sectional associations between diet and body mass index (BMI), whereas the use of a simpler recommended criteria (3,500 kcal/day) yielded no meaningful change. However, these findings might have been due to exclusions made based on weight, a primary determinant of BMI. Using data from 52,110 women in the Nurses' Health Study (1990), we reproduced the cross-sectional findings of Mendez et al. and compared the results from the recommended method with those from 2 weight-dependent alternative methods (the Goldberg method and predicted total energy expenditure method). The same 3 exclusion criteria were then used to examine dietary variables prospectively in relation to change in BMI, which is not a direct function of attained weight. We found similar associations using the 3 methods. In a separate cross-sectional analysis using biomarkers of dietary factors, we found similar correlations for intakes of fatty acids (n = 439) and carotenoids and retinol (n = 1,293) using the 3 methods for exclusions. These results do not support the general conclusion that use of exclusion criteria based on the alternative methods might confer an advantage over the recommended exclusion method.