Major Gaps in Understanding Dietary Supplement Use in Health and Disease.

IF 12.6 2区 医学 Q1 NUTRITION & DIETETICS
Annual review of nutrition Pub Date : 2023-08-21 Epub Date: 2023-05-17 DOI:10.1146/annurev-nutr-011923-020327
Regan L Bailey, Shinyoung Jun, Alexandra E Cowan, Heather A Eicher-Miller, Jaime J Gahche, Johanna T Dwyer, Terryl J Hartman, Diane C Mitchell, Rebecca A Seguin-Fowler, Raymond J Carroll, Janet A Tooze
{"title":"Major Gaps in Understanding Dietary Supplement Use in Health and Disease.","authors":"Regan L Bailey, Shinyoung Jun, Alexandra E Cowan, Heather A Eicher-Miller, Jaime J Gahche, Johanna T Dwyer, Terryl J Hartman, Diane C Mitchell, Rebecca A Seguin-Fowler, Raymond J Carroll, Janet A Tooze","doi":"10.1146/annurev-nutr-011923-020327","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Precise dietary assessment is critical for accurate exposure classification in nutritional research, typically aimed at understanding how diet relates to health. Dietary supplement (DS) use is widespread and represents a considerable source of nutrients. However, few studies have compared the best methods to measure DSs. Our literature review on the relative validity and reproducibility of DS instruments in the United States [e.g., product inventories, questionnaires, and 24-h dietary recalls (24HR)] identified five studies that examined validity (<i>n</i> = 5) and/or reproducibility (<i>n</i> = 4). No gold standard reference method exists for validating DS use; thus, each study's investigators chose the reference instrument used to measure validity. Self-administered questionnaires agreed well with 24HR and inventory methods when comparing the prevalence of commonly used DSs. The inventory method captured nutrient amounts more accurately than the other methods. Reproducibility (over 3 months to 2.4 years) of prevalence of use estimates on the questionnaires was acceptable for common DSs. Given the limited body of research on measurement error in DS assessment, only tentative conclusions on these DS instruments can be drawn at present. Further research is critical to advancing knowledge in DS assessment for research and monitoring purposes.</p>","PeriodicalId":8009,"journal":{"name":"Annual review of nutrition","volume":"43 ","pages":"179-197"},"PeriodicalIF":12.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11078263/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annual review of nutrition","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-nutr-011923-020327","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/5/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Precise dietary assessment is critical for accurate exposure classification in nutritional research, typically aimed at understanding how diet relates to health. Dietary supplement (DS) use is widespread and represents a considerable source of nutrients. However, few studies have compared the best methods to measure DSs. Our literature review on the relative validity and reproducibility of DS instruments in the United States [e.g., product inventories, questionnaires, and 24-h dietary recalls (24HR)] identified five studies that examined validity (n = 5) and/or reproducibility (n = 4). No gold standard reference method exists for validating DS use; thus, each study's investigators chose the reference instrument used to measure validity. Self-administered questionnaires agreed well with 24HR and inventory methods when comparing the prevalence of commonly used DSs. The inventory method captured nutrient amounts more accurately than the other methods. Reproducibility (over 3 months to 2.4 years) of prevalence of use estimates on the questionnaires was acceptable for common DSs. Given the limited body of research on measurement error in DS assessment, only tentative conclusions on these DS instruments can be drawn at present. Further research is critical to advancing knowledge in DS assessment for research and monitoring purposes.

了解健康和疾病中膳食补充剂使用情况的主要差距。
精确的膳食评估对于营养研究中准确的暴露分类至关重要,这些研究通常旨在了解膳食与健康的关系。膳食补充剂(DS)的使用非常普遍,是营养素的重要来源。然而,很少有研究对测量膳食补充剂的最佳方法进行比较。我们对美国膳食补充剂工具(如产品清单、问卷调查和 24 小时膳食回顾(24HR))的相对有效性和可重复性进行了文献综述,发现有五项研究考察了有效性(n = 5)和/或可重复性(n = 4)。目前还没有验证 DS 使用情况的金标准参考方法;因此,每项研究的调查人员都选择了用于衡量有效性的参考工具。在比较常用DS的普遍性时,自填式问卷与24HR和盘存法的结果一致。盘存法比其他方法更准确地捕捉到营养素的数量。对于常见的 DSs 而言,调查问卷中使用率估计值的再现性(3 个月至 2.4 年)是可以接受的。鉴于对 DS 评估中测量误差的研究有限,目前只能对这些 DS 工具得出初步结论。进一步的研究对增进用于研究和监测目的的 DS 评估方面的知识至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Annual review of nutrition
Annual review of nutrition 医学-营养学
CiteScore
15.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: Annual Review of Nutrition Publication History:In publication since 1981 Scope:Covers significant developments in the field of nutrition Topics Covered Include: Energy metabolism; Carbohydrates; Lipids; Proteins and amino acids; Vitamins; Minerals; Nutrient transport and function; Metabolic regulation; Nutritional genomics; Molecular and cell biology; Clinical nutrition; Comparative nutrition; Nutritional anthropology; Nutritional toxicology; Nutritional microbiology; Epidemiology; Public health nutrition
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信