...
首页> 外文期刊>Preventive Medicine: An International Journal Devoted to Practice and Theory >Relative validity of a diet history interview in an intervention trial manipulating dietary fat in the management of Type II diabetes mellitus small star, filled.
【24h】

Relative validity of a diet history interview in an intervention trial manipulating dietary fat in the management of Type II diabetes mellitus small star, filled.

机译:一项饮食史访谈在一项干预性饮食中的相对有效性,该干预试验在管理II型糖尿病小星星的过程中控制饮食脂肪,实心。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

This study assesses the relative validity of a diet history interview in 56 free-living individuals with Type II diabetes mellitus.The diet history interview was compared to a 3-day food record in a 1-year dietary intervention trial. The plausibility of energy intake data was examined throughout the trial. Paired data were compared for differences and the presence of systematic error was determined by Bland Altman analysis. Changes in accuracy and responsiveness were assessed over time.The proportion of underreporters was larger in the diet history at baseline. Underrecording with the food record was more common in subjects with BMIs > 30 kg/m(2). There was no difference between paired dietary data from the two methods; however, data on fatty acids failed to correlate. These correlations improved when outliers were removed. There was no evidence of a relationship between bias and mean intake of dietary variables. Accuracy of diet history measurement did not change during the trial for energy or macronutrients, but data on protein and monounsaturated fat were both affected by BMI. The diet history was more responsive than the food record to changes in monounsaturated fatty acid intake after 3 months, but this changed at the end of the trial.The diet history provided good estimates of energy and macronutrient intakes in a sample group with Type II diabetes mellitus. However, energy intake data revealed a high prevalence of underreporting especially in people with higher BMIs.
机译:这项研究评估了56名II型糖尿病自由活动者饮食史访谈的相对有效性,并在1年的饮食干预试验中将饮食史访谈与3天的饮食记录进行了比较。在整个试验中检查了能量摄入数据的合理性。比较配对数据的差异,并通过Bland Altman分析确定系统误差的存在。评估准确性和反应性随时间的变化。在基线饮食史中,漏报者的比例较大。在BMI> 30 kg / m(2)的受试者中,食物记录不足的记录更为常见。两种方法的配对饮食数据之间没有差异。但是,脂肪酸数据没有相关性。当离群值被删除时,这些相关性得到改善。没有证据表明偏倚与平均饮食摄入量之间存在关联。在能量或大量营养素的试验期间,饮食历史测量的准确性没有改变,但有关蛋白质和单不饱和脂肪的数据均受BMI的影响。饮食史比食物记录对3个月后单不饱和脂肪酸摄入量的变化更敏感,但在试验结束时变化了。饮食史对II型糖尿病样本组的能量和大量营养素摄入量提供了很好的估计的。但是,能量摄入数据显示漏报率很高,尤其是在BMI较高的人群中。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号