Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Comparative analysis of the Cancer Council of Victoria and the online Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation FFQ.
Br J Nutr. 2015 Nov 28; 114(10):1683-93.BJ

Abstract

FFQ are commonly used to examine the association between diet and disease. They are the most practical method for usual dietary data collection as they are relatively inexpensive and easy to administer. In Australia, the Cancer Council of Victoria FFQ (CCVFFQ) version 2 and the online Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation FFQ (CSIROFFQ) are used. The aim of our study was to establish the level of agreement between nutrient intakes captured using the online CSIROFFQ and the paper-based CCVFFQ. The CCVFFQ and the online CSIROFFQ were completed by 136 healthy participants. FFQ responses were analysed to give g per d intake of a range of nutrients. Agreement between twenty-six nutrient intakes common to both FFQ was measured by a variety of methods. Nutrient intake levels that were significantly correlated between the two FFQ were carbohydrates, total fat, Na and MUFA. When assessing ranking of nutrients into quintiles, on average, 56 % of the participants (for all nutrients) were classified into the same or adjacent quintiles in both FFQ, with the highest percentage agreement for sugar. On average, 21 % of participants were grossly misclassified by three or four quintiles, with the highest percentage misclassification for fibre and Fe. Quintile agreement was similar to that reported by other studies, and we concluded that both FFQ are suitable tools for dividing participants' nutrient intake levels into high- and low-consumption groups. Use of either FFQ was not appropriate for obtaining accurate estimates of absolute nutrient intakes.

Authors+Show Affiliations

1School of Medical Sciences,Centre of Excellence for Alzheimer's Disease Research & Care,Edith Cowan University,Joondalup,WA 6027,Australia.1School of Medical Sciences,Centre of Excellence for Alzheimer's Disease Research & Care,Edith Cowan University,Joondalup,WA 6027,Australia.3CSIRO Food and Nutrition Flagship,CMSE Parkville,VIC 3052,Australia.1School of Medical Sciences,Centre of Excellence for Alzheimer's Disease Research & Care,Edith Cowan University,Joondalup,WA 6027,Australia.4The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health,The University of Melbourne,Parkville,VIC 3052,Australia.4The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health,The University of Melbourne,Parkville,VIC 3052,Australia.4The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health,The University of Melbourne,Parkville,VIC 3052,Australia.4The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health,The University of Melbourne,Parkville,VIC 3052,Australia.8Department of Nuclear Medicine & Centre for PET,Austin Health,Heidelberg,VIC 3084,Australia.6National Ageing Research Institute,Parkville,VIC 3052,Australia.9School of Pharmacy & Medical Sciences & Sansom Institute for Health Research,Division of Health Sciences,University of South Australia,Adelaide,SA 5001,Australia.1School of Medical Sciences,Centre of Excellence for Alzheimer's Disease Research & Care,Edith Cowan University,Joondalup,WA 6027,Australia.No affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Language

eng

PubMed ID

26382226

Citation

Gardener, Samantha L., et al. "Comparative Analysis of the Cancer Council of Victoria and the Online Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation FFQ." The British Journal of Nutrition, vol. 114, no. 10, 2015, pp. 1683-93.
Gardener SL, Rainey-Smith SR, Macaulay SL, et al. Comparative analysis of the Cancer Council of Victoria and the online Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation FFQ. Br J Nutr. 2015;114(10):1683-93.
Gardener, S. L., Rainey-Smith, S. R., Macaulay, S. L., Taddei, K., Rembach, A., Maruff, P., Ellis, K. A., Masters, C. L., Rowe, C. C., Ames, D., Keogh, J. B., & Martins, R. N. (2015). Comparative analysis of the Cancer Council of Victoria and the online Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation FFQ. The British Journal of Nutrition, 114(10), 1683-93. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114515003335
Gardener SL, et al. Comparative Analysis of the Cancer Council of Victoria and the Online Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation FFQ. Br J Nutr. 2015 Nov 28;114(10):1683-93. PubMed PMID: 26382226.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Comparative analysis of the Cancer Council of Victoria and the online Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation FFQ. AU - Gardener,Samantha L, AU - Rainey-Smith,Stephanie R, AU - Macaulay,S Lance, AU - Taddei,Kevin, AU - Rembach,Alan, AU - Maruff,Paul, AU - Ellis,Kathryn A, AU - Masters,Colin L, AU - Rowe,Christopher C, AU - Ames,David, AU - Keogh,Jennifer B, AU - Martins,Ralph N, AU - ,, Y1 - 2015/09/18/ PY - 2015/9/19/entrez PY - 2015/9/19/pubmed PY - 2016/2/2/medline KW - CCVFFQ Cancer Council of Victoria FFQ KW - CSIROFFQ Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation FFQ KW - Cancer Council of Victoria FFQ KW - Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation FFQ KW - Comparative KW - FFQ KW - LOA limits of agreement KW - analysis SP - 1683 EP - 93 JF - The British journal of nutrition JO - Br J Nutr VL - 114 IS - 10 N2 - FFQ are commonly used to examine the association between diet and disease. They are the most practical method for usual dietary data collection as they are relatively inexpensive and easy to administer. In Australia, the Cancer Council of Victoria FFQ (CCVFFQ) version 2 and the online Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation FFQ (CSIROFFQ) are used. The aim of our study was to establish the level of agreement between nutrient intakes captured using the online CSIROFFQ and the paper-based CCVFFQ. The CCVFFQ and the online CSIROFFQ were completed by 136 healthy participants. FFQ responses were analysed to give g per d intake of a range of nutrients. Agreement between twenty-six nutrient intakes common to both FFQ was measured by a variety of methods. Nutrient intake levels that were significantly correlated between the two FFQ were carbohydrates, total fat, Na and MUFA. When assessing ranking of nutrients into quintiles, on average, 56 % of the participants (for all nutrients) were classified into the same or adjacent quintiles in both FFQ, with the highest percentage agreement for sugar. On average, 21 % of participants were grossly misclassified by three or four quintiles, with the highest percentage misclassification for fibre and Fe. Quintile agreement was similar to that reported by other studies, and we concluded that both FFQ are suitable tools for dividing participants' nutrient intake levels into high- and low-consumption groups. Use of either FFQ was not appropriate for obtaining accurate estimates of absolute nutrient intakes. SN - 1475-2662 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/26382226/Comparative_analysis_of_the_Cancer_Council_of_Victoria_and_the_online_Commonwealth_Scientific_and_Industrial_Research_Organisation_FFQ_ L2 - https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0007114515003335/type/journal_article DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -