AI Article Synopsis

  • - The study aimed to assess how accurately different self-reported tools (like ASA24s, FFQs, and 4DFRs) measure water intake compared to a reliable biomarker called doubly labeled water (DLW) in a sample of adults aged 50 to 74. - Results showed that all self-report methods tended to underestimate actual water intake, with FFQs performing slightly better than ASA24s and 4DFRs, especially in terms of estimating population means. - Overall, the study suggests that while self-reporting can provide insights into water consumption, researchers have multiple viable options for measuring intake and examining its relationship to health outcomes.

Article Abstract

Background: Although prior evidence indicates that water intake is important for health, the ability to accurately measure community-dwelling intake is limited. Only a few studies have evaluated self-reported water intake against an objective recovery biomarker.

Objectives: The aim was to compare preformed water intakes (all sources including food) by multiple Automated Self-Administered 24-h recalls (ASA24s), food frequency questionnaires (FFQs), and 4-d food records (4DFRs) against a recovery biomarker, doubly labeled water (DLW), to assess measurement error.

Methods: Over 1 y, 1082 women and men (50%), aged 50 to 74 y, were asked to complete 6 ASA24s, 2 FFQs, 2 unweighted 4DFRs, and an administration of DLW (n = 686). Geometric means of water intake by self-report tools were compared with DLW. Attenuation factors and correlation coefficients between self-reported and the recovery biomarker (DLW) were estimated.

Results: Mean water intakes by DLW were 2777 mL/d (interquartile range, 2350 to 3331) in women and 3243 mL/d (interquartile range, 2720 to 3838) in men. Compared with DLW, water intake was underestimated by 18% to 31% on ASA24s and 43% to 44% on 4DFRs. Estimated geometric means from FFQs differed from DLW by -1% to +13%. For a single ASA24, FFQ, and 4DFR, attenuation factors were 0.28, 0.27, and 0.32 and correlation coefficients were 0.46, 0.48, and 0.49, respectively. Repeated use of 6 ASA24s, 2 FFQs, and 2 4DFRs improved attenuation factors to 0.43, 0.32, and 0.39 and correlation coefficients to 0.58, 0.53, and 0.54, respectively.

Conclusions: FFQs may better estimate population means for usual water intake compared with ASA24 and 4DFR. Similar attenuation factors and correlation coefficients across all self-report tools indicate that researchers have 3 feasible options if the goal is understanding intake-disease relationships. The findings are useful for planning future nutrition studies that set policy priorities for populations and to understand the health impact of water. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03268577.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10613756PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tjnut.2023.08.027DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

water intake
24
attenuation factors
16
correlation coefficients
16
water
11
automated self-administered
8
self-administered 24-h
8
4-d food
8
food records
8
food frequency
8
doubly labeled
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!