Searching the Resource Information Network
Are you sure you want to leave this community? Leaving the community will revoke any permissions you have been granted in this community.
Dietary assessment methods that are recognized as appropriate for the general population are usually applied in a similar manner to athletes, despite the knowledge that sport-specific factors can complicate assessment and impact accuracy in unique ways. As dietary assessment methods are used extensively within the field of sports nutrition, there is concern the validity of methodologies have not undergone more rigorous evaluation in this unique population sub-group. The purpose of this systematic review was to compare two or more methods of dietary assessment, including dietary intake measured against biomarkers or reference measures of energy expenditure, in athletes. Six electronic databases were searched for English-language, full-text articles published from January 1980 until June 2016. The search strategy combined the following keywords: diet, nutrition assessment, athlete, and validity; where the following outcomes are reported but not limited to: energy intake, macro and/or micronutrient intake, food intake, nutritional adequacy, diet quality, or nutritional status. Meta-analysis was performed on studies with sufficient methodological similarity, with between-group standardized mean differences (or effect size) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) being calculated. Of the 1624 studies identified, 18 were eligible for inclusion. Studies comparing self-reported energy intake (EI) to energy expenditure assessed via doubly labelled water were grouped for comparison (n = 11) and demonstrated mean EI was under-estimated by 19% (-2793 ± 1134 kJ/day). Meta-analysis revealed a large pooled effect size of -1.006 (95% CI: -1.3 to -0.7; p < 0.001). The remaining studies (n = 7) compared a new dietary tool or instrument to a reference method(s) (e.g., food record, 24-h dietary recall, biomarker) as part of a validation study. This systematic review revealed there are limited robust studies evaluating dietary assessment methods in athletes. Existing literature demonstrates the substantial variability between methods, with under- and misreporting of intake being frequently observed. There is a clear need for careful validation of dietary assessment methods, including emerging technical innovations, among athlete populations.
Pubmed ID: 29207495
Publication data is provided by the National Library of Medicine ® and PubMed ®. Data is retrieved from PubMed ® on a weekly schedule. For terms and conditions see the National Library of Medicine Terms and Conditions.
Comprehensive international bibliographic biomedical database that enables users to track and retrieve precise information on drugs and diseases from pre-clinical studies to searches on critical toxicological information. It contains bibliographic records with citations, abstracts and indexing derived from biomedical articles in peer reviewed journals, and is especially strong in its coverage of drug and pharmaceutical research. Embase can help with everything from clinical trials research to pharmacovigilance and is updated online daily and weekly. Its broad biomedical scope covers the following areas: * Drug therapy and research, including pharmaceutics, pharmacology and toxicology * Clinical and experimental (human) medicine * Basic biological science relevant to human medicine * Biotechnology and biomedical engineering, including medical devices * Health policy and management, including pharmacoeconomics * Public, occupational and environmental health, including pollution control * Veterinary science, dentistry, and nursing The Embase Application Programming Interface supports export, RSS feeds, and integration services, making it possible to share data with a wide range of systems.
View all literature mentionsA premier bibliographic database that contains over 18 million references to journal articles in life sciences with a concentration on biomedicine. A distinctive feature is that the records are indexed with NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). PubMed provides free access to MEDLINE and links to full text articles when possible. The great majority of journals are selected for MEDLINE based on the recommendation of the Literature Selection Technical Review Committee (LSTRC), an NIH-chartered advisory committee of external experts analogous to the committees that review NIH grant applications. Some additional journals and newsletters are selected based on NLM-initiated reviews, e.g., history of medicine, health services research, AIDS, toxicology and environmental health, molecular biology, and complementary medicine, that are special priorities for NLM or other NIH components. These reviews generally also involve consultation with an array of NIH and outside experts or, in some cases, external organizations with which NLM has special collaborative arrangements. MEDLINE is the primary component of PubMed, part of the Entrez series of databases provided by the NLM National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). MEDLINE may also be searched via the NLM Gateway. Time coverage: generally 1946 to the present, with some older material. Source: Currently, citations from approximately 5,516 worldwide journals in 39 languages; 60 languages for older journals. Citations for MEDLINE are created by the NLM, international partners, and collaborating organizations.
View all literature mentionsWelcome to the Neuroscience Information Framework Project, designed to serve the biomedical research community. NIF maintains the largest searchable collection of neuroscience data, the largest catalog of biomedical resources, and the largest ontology for neuroscience on the web. We welcome all feedback and suggestions and are actively looking for resource providers to make their resources accessible through NIF. Learn about the tools available to help you share your data and discover a dynamic inventory of Web-based neuroscience resources.
