Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2018 Dec 28;11(1):55.
doi: 10.3390/nu11010055.

Evaluation of New Technology-Based Tools for Dietary Intake Assessment-An ILSI Europe Dietary Intake and Exposure Task Force Evaluation

Alison L Eldridge  1 , Carmen Piernas  2 , Anne-Kathrin Illner  3 , Michael J Gibney  4 , Mirjana A Gurinović  5 , Jeanne H M de Vries  6 , Janet E Cade  7
Affiliations
Review

Evaluation of New Technology-Based Tools for Dietary Intake Assessment-An ILSI Europe Dietary Intake and Exposure Task Force Evaluation

Alison L Eldridge et al. Nutrients. .

Abstract

Background: New technology-based dietary assessment tools, including Web-based programs, mobile applications, and wearable devices, may improve accuracy and reduce costs of dietary data collection and processing. The International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) Europe Dietary Intake and Exposure Task Force launched this project to evaluate new tools in order to recommend general quality standards for future applications.

Methods: A comprehensive literature search identified technology-based dietary assessment tools, including those published in English from 01/2011 to 09/2017, and providing details on tool features, functions and uses. Each of the 43 tools identified (33 for research and 10 designed for consumer use) was rated on 25 attributes.

Results: Most of the tools identified (79%) relied on self-reported dietary intakes. Most (91%) used text entry and 33% used digital images to help identify foods. Only 65% had integrated databases for estimating energy or nutrients. Fewer than 50% contained any features of customization and about half generated automatic reports. Most tools reported on usability or reported validity compared with another assessment method (77%). A set of Best Practice Guidelines was developed for reporting dietary assessment tools using new technology.

Conclusions: Dietary assessment methods that utilize technology offer many advantages for research and are often preferable to consumers over more traditional methods. In order to meet general quality standards, new technology tools require detailed publications describing tool development, food identification and quantification, customization, outputs, food composition tables used, and usability/validity testing.

Keywords: Web-based technologies; dietary assessment; mobile technologies.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results. A.L.E. is the Chair of the ILSI Dietary Intake and Exposure Task Force and the expert group responsible for this research. C.P. and A.K.I. declare no conflicts of interest. M.J.G. leads the Food4Me Consortium responsible for the development, research pipeline, and validation of Food4Me. M.A.G. was involved as the nutritional researcher proving professional advice to IT in the creation and testing of the Diet Assess and Plan (DAP). J.H.M.V. was involved in the development and validation of Compl-Eat. J.E.C. is a director of a University of Leeds spin-out private company, Dietary Assessment Ltd., supporting the development of myfood24. She also led the project that developed MyMealMate.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA diagram used to identify technology-based tools for dietary intake assessment.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Summary rating of the features from the dietary assessment tools designed for research or surveillance (A) and for consumer use (B).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Energy estimations from digital tools vs. traditional methods of dietary intake assessment.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Best practice guidelines for reporting new technologies for dietary assessment.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Cade J.E. Measuring diet in the 21st century: Use of new technologies. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 2017;76:276–282. doi: 10.1017/S0029665116002883. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cade J.E., Warthon-Medina M., Albar S., Alwan N.A., Ness A., Roe M., Wark P.A., Greathead K., Burley V.J., Finglas P., et al. DIET@NET: Best practice guidelines for dietary assessment in health research. BMC Med. 2017;15:202. doi: 10.1186/s12916-017-0962-x. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Freedman L.S., Potischman N., Kipnis V., Midthune D., Schatzkin A., Thompson F.E., Troiano R.P., Prentice R., Patterson R., Carroll R., et al. A comparison of two dietary instruments for evaluating the fat-breast cancer relationship. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2006;35:1011–1021. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyl085. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Freedman L.S., Schatzkin A., Midthune D., Kipnis V. Dealing with dietary measurement error in nutritional cohort studies. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2011;103:1086–1092. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djr189. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Blanton C.A., Moshfegh A.J., Baer D.J., Kretsch M.J. The USDA Automated Multiple-Pass Method accurately estimates group total energy and nutrient intake. J. Nutr. 2006;136:2594–2599. doi: 10.1093/jn/136.10.2594. - DOI - PubMed