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
. 2021 Oct;60(7):4069-4082.
doi: 10.1007/s00394-021-02547-7. Epub 2021 May 11.

Validation of the web-based self-administered 24-h dietary recall myfood24-Germany: comparison with a weighed dietary record and biomarkers

Stefanie A J Koch  1 , Johanna Conrad  2   3 , Janet E Cade  4 , Leonie Weinhold  5 , Ute Alexy  2 , Ute Nöthlings  2
Affiliations

Validation of the web-based self-administered 24-h dietary recall myfood24-Germany: comparison with a weighed dietary record and biomarkers

Stefanie A J Koch et al. Eur J Nutr. 2021 Oct.

Abstract

Purpose: We aimed to validate myfood24-Germany, a web-based 24-h dietary recall (24HDR), by comparing its performance with a weighed dietary record (WDR) and biomarkers.

Methods: 97 adults (77% female) completed a 3-day WDR with a 24-h urine collection on day 3, followed by at least one 24HDR with myfood24-Germany (corresponding to day 3 of the WDR). Intake of energy and 32 nutrients assessed by myfood24-Germany and the WDR for the same day were compared (method comparison). Intakes of protein and potassium assessed by myfood24-Germany/WDR were compared with intake estimated from urinary biomarkers for protein and potassium (biomarker comparison).

Results: In the method comparison, significant correlations were found for energy and all tested nutrients (range 0.45-0.87). There was no significant difference between both methods in the assessed mean energy and macronutrient intake. However, myfood24-Germany underestimated mean intake of 15 nutrients. In the biomarker comparison, protein intake reported by myfood24-Germany/WDR was on average 10%/8% lower than estimated by biomarker. There was no significant difference in mean potassium intake assessed by myfood24-Germany/WDR and biomarker. However, a shared bias in the assessment of potassium intake was observed for both instruments. Concordance correlation coefficients (pc) and weighted Kappa coefficients (κ) confirmed good agreement with the biomarker estimates for myfood24-Germany/WDR in case of protein (pc = 0.58/0.66, κ = 0.51/0.53) and moderate agreement in case of potassium (pc = 0.44/0.51; κ = 0.30/0.33).

Conclusion: Our results suggest that myfood24-Germany is of comparable validity to traditional dietary assessment methods.

Keywords: Dietary assessment; Myfood24; Validation study; Web-based 24-h dietary recall.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

myfood24 is now being supported by the spinout company Dietary Assessment Ltd. Professor Janet Cade is Director of Dietary Assessment Ltd and led the development of myfood24 in the UK.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flowchart illustrating the number of participants and completed three-day weighed dietary records (WDR), 24-h urine samples and 24-h recalls (24HDR)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Enhanced Bland–Altman Plots for protein intake. (a) Comparison between myfood24-Germany and biomarker estimation, (b) Comparison between weighed dietary record (WDR) and biomarker estimation, (c) Comparison between myfood24-Germany and WDR
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Enhanced Bland–Altman Plots for potassium intake. (a) Comparison between myfood24-Germany and biomarker estimation, (b) Comparison between weighed dietary record (WDR) and biomarker estimation, (c) Comparison between myfood24-Germany and WDR
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Pearson’s Correlation Coefficients (ρ (95% CI)) and Lin’s concordance correlation coefficients (ρc (95% CI)) for intake of protein and potassium according to urinary biomarkers nitrogen and potassium (B), myfood24-Germany (myfood24) and weighed dietary record (WDR). Measurements were based on one 24-h dietary recall, 1 day of WDR and one 24-h urine completed for the same day by n = 89 participants. Intake variables were log transformed to improve normal distribution
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Conrad J, Koch SAJ, Nöthlings U. New approaches in assessing food intake in epidemiology. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2018;21:343–351. doi: 10.1097/MCO.0000000000000497. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Illner A-K, Freisling H, Boeing H, et al. Review and evaluation of innovative technologies for measuring diet in nutritional epidemiology. Int J Epidemiol. 2012;41:1187–1203. doi: 10.1093/ije/dys105. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Conrad J, Nöthlings U. Innovative approaches to estimate individual usual dietary intake in large-scale epidemiological studies. Proc Nutr Soc. 2017;76:213–219. doi: 10.1017/S0029665116003025. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Carroll RJ, Midthune D, Subar AF, et al. Taking advantage of the strengths of 2 different dietary assessment instruments to improve intake estimates for nutritional epidemiology. Am J Epidemiol. 2012;175:340–347. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwr317. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Park Y, Dodd KW, Kipnis V, et al. Comparison of self-reported dietary intakes from the automated self-administered 24-h recall, 4-d food records, and food-frequency questionnaires against recovery biomarkers. Am J Clin Nutr. 2018;107:80–93. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/nqx002. - DOI - PMC - PubMed