Evidence Hub

Relative validity of FFQ to assess food items, energy, macronutrient and micronutrient intake in children and adolescents: a systematic review with meta-analysis

Luisa Saravia, M. Miguel-Berges, I. Iglesia, M. Nascimento-Ferreira, Guillermo Perdomo, Isabel Bove, B. Slater, L. Moreno

British Journal of Nutrition, 2020

38 citations

Abstract

Abstract FFQ are one of the most widely used tools of research into nutritional epidemiology, and many studies have been conducted in several countries using this dietary assessment method. The present study aimed to evaluate the relative validity of FFQ, in comparison with other methods, in assessing dietary intake of children and adolescents, through a systematic review. Four electronic databases (Embase, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science) found sixty-seven articles, which met the inclusion criteria (healthy children and adolescents from 3 to 18 years of age; journal articles written in English, Spanish and Portuguese between 1988 and March 2019; results showing the comparison between the FFQ with other methods of assessment of dietary intake). The articles were analysed by two independent reviewers. A meta-analysis was conducted using correlation coefficients as estimate effects between the FFQ and the reference standard method. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression were performed to identify the probable source of heterogeneity. In fifty-five of the sixty-seven studies, a single dietary assessment method was used to evaluate the FFQ; nine combined the two methods and three used three reference methods. The most widely used reference method was the 24-h recall, followed by the food record. The overall relative validity of the FFQ to estimate energy, macronutrient, certain micronutrient and certain food item intakes in children and adolescents may be considered weak. The…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free