Fatemeh Vida Zohoori, Marilia Afonso Rabelo Buzalaf, Anne Maguire, Roy Sanderson, Rodrigo A Giacaman, Stefania Martignon, Edgar O Beltran, Fatemeh Eskandari, Jelena Kronic, Karla Gambetta-Tessini, Flavia Mauad Levy
{"title":"评估儿童总氟化物摄入量:常用方法的可靠性。","authors":"Fatemeh Vida Zohoori, Marilia Afonso Rabelo Buzalaf, Anne Maguire, Roy Sanderson, Rodrigo A Giacaman, Stefania Martignon, Edgar O Beltran, Fatemeh Eskandari, Jelena Kronic, Karla Gambetta-Tessini, Flavia Mauad Levy","doi":"10.1111/cdoe.70015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Fluoride exposure in children is commonly estimated using questionnaires or urinary biomarkers. However, no study has yet compared these methods for classifying participants into five intake categories ranging from low to high. This study aimed to estimate the extent of agreement and classification consistency between questionnaire- and urinary-based methods for assessing total daily fluoride intake (TDFI) in children aged 4-7 years.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 104 healthy children across three countries (UK, Brazil, Chile) receiving one of three fluoridation modalities (non-fluoridated-water, fluoridated-water, or fluoridated-milk) provided a 24-h urine sample and completed validated dietary and oral hygiene questionnaires. TDFI was estimated from dietary sources and toothpaste ingestion, adjusted for body weight. Urinary fluoride concentration was measured and 24 h-UFE determined by multiplying urine volume by fluoride concentration. TDFI was predicted from 24 h-UFE using the WHO's recommended method. Method agreement was assessed using paired t-tests and Bland-Altman analysis to evaluate continuous fluoride intake estimates. Cohen's kappa was used to assess agreement between categorical intake classifications, while descriptive statistics reported the percentage of children in each intake group.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The questionnaire method estimated a higher mean TDFI (0.072 mg/kgbw/day) than the urine-based method (0.058 mg/kgbw/day, p = 0.01). Bland-Altman analysis showed good agreement for lower mean TDFI values (< 0.10 mg/kgbw/day) but increasing variability at higher fluoride intake levels. The questionnaire classified a larger proportion of children as high exposure (≥ 0.1 mg/kgbw/day) than the urine method (19.2% vs. 11.5%), with the greatest discrepancy observed in the fluoridated milk group (46.2% vs. 7.7%). Despite these classifications, Cohen's kappa revealed minimal agreement between methods (κ = 0.034, p = 0.508), suggesting that classification concordance was likely due to chance.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This first study comparing questionnaire and urinary methods for assessing TDFI in children found significant discrepancies and minimal agreement, especially in higher exposure groups, highlighting the risk of misclassification and the need for research into combined assessment approaches.</p>","PeriodicalId":10580,"journal":{"name":"Community dentistry and oral epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing Total Fluoride Intake in Children: Reliability of Commonly Used Methods.\",\"authors\":\"Fatemeh Vida Zohoori, Marilia Afonso Rabelo Buzalaf, Anne Maguire, Roy Sanderson, Rodrigo A Giacaman, Stefania Martignon, Edgar O Beltran, Fatemeh Eskandari, Jelena Kronic, Karla Gambetta-Tessini, Flavia Mauad Levy\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/cdoe.70015\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Fluoride exposure in children is commonly estimated using questionnaires or urinary biomarkers. However, no study has yet compared these methods for classifying participants into five intake categories ranging from low to high. This study aimed to estimate the extent of agreement and classification consistency between questionnaire- and urinary-based methods for assessing total daily fluoride intake (TDFI) in children aged 4-7 years.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 104 healthy children across three countries (UK, Brazil, Chile) receiving one of three fluoridation modalities (non-fluoridated-water, fluoridated-water, or fluoridated-milk) provided a 24-h urine sample and completed validated dietary and oral hygiene questionnaires. TDFI was estimated from dietary sources and toothpaste ingestion, adjusted for body weight. Urinary fluoride concentration was measured and 24 h-UFE determined by multiplying urine volume by fluoride concentration. TDFI was predicted from 24 h-UFE using the WHO's recommended method. Method agreement was assessed using paired t-tests and Bland-Altman analysis to evaluate continuous fluoride intake estimates. Cohen's kappa was used to assess agreement between categorical intake classifications, while descriptive statistics reported the percentage of children in each intake group.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The questionnaire method estimated a higher mean TDFI (0.072 mg/kgbw/day) than the urine-based method (0.058 mg/kgbw/day, p = 0.01). Bland-Altman analysis showed good agreement for lower mean TDFI values (< 0.10 mg/kgbw/day) but increasing variability at higher fluoride intake levels. The questionnaire classified a larger proportion of children as high exposure (≥ 0.1 mg/kgbw/day) than the urine method (19.2% vs. 11.5%), with the greatest discrepancy observed in the fluoridated milk group (46.2% vs. 7.7%). Despite these classifications, Cohen's kappa revealed minimal agreement between methods (κ = 0.034, p = 0.508), suggesting that classification concordance was likely due to chance.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This first study comparing questionnaire and urinary methods for assessing TDFI in children found significant discrepancies and minimal agreement, especially in higher exposure groups, highlighting the risk of misclassification and the need for research into combined assessment approaches.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10580,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Community dentistry and oral epidemiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Community dentistry and oral epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/cdoe.70015\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Community dentistry and oral epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cdoe.70015","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:通常使用问卷调查或尿液生物标志物来估计儿童的氟化物暴露。然而,目前还没有研究将这些方法进行比较,将参与者分为从低到高的五个摄入量类别。本研究旨在评估问卷法和尿法在评估4-7岁儿童每日总氟摄入量(TDFI)方面的一致性程度和分类一致性。方法:来自三个国家(英国、巴西、智利)的104名健康儿童接受了三种氟化方式(非氟化水、氟化水或氟化牛奶)中的一种,提供了24小时尿液样本,并完成了经过验证的饮食和口腔卫生问卷。TDFI是根据饮食来源和牙膏摄入量估算的,并根据体重进行调整。测定尿氟浓度,用尿量乘以氟化物浓度测定24h - ufe。使用世界卫生组织推荐的方法从24 h-UFE预测TDFI。使用配对t检验和Bland-Altman分析来评估连续氟化物摄入量估计,评估方法一致性。Cohen’s kappa被用于评估分类摄入之间的一致性,而描述性统计报告了每个摄入组中儿童的百分比。结果:问卷法估计的TDFI平均值(0.072 mg/kgbw/d)高于尿法(0.058 mg/kgbw/d, p = 0.01)。Bland-Altman分析显示较低的平均TDFI值具有良好的一致性(结论:这是第一个比较问卷调查和尿液方法评估儿童TDFI的研究,发现显著差异和最小的一致性,特别是在高暴露组,突出了错误分类的风险和研究联合评估方法的必要性。
Assessing Total Fluoride Intake in Children: Reliability of Commonly Used Methods.
Objectives: Fluoride exposure in children is commonly estimated using questionnaires or urinary biomarkers. However, no study has yet compared these methods for classifying participants into five intake categories ranging from low to high. This study aimed to estimate the extent of agreement and classification consistency between questionnaire- and urinary-based methods for assessing total daily fluoride intake (TDFI) in children aged 4-7 years.
Methods: A total of 104 healthy children across three countries (UK, Brazil, Chile) receiving one of three fluoridation modalities (non-fluoridated-water, fluoridated-water, or fluoridated-milk) provided a 24-h urine sample and completed validated dietary and oral hygiene questionnaires. TDFI was estimated from dietary sources and toothpaste ingestion, adjusted for body weight. Urinary fluoride concentration was measured and 24 h-UFE determined by multiplying urine volume by fluoride concentration. TDFI was predicted from 24 h-UFE using the WHO's recommended method. Method agreement was assessed using paired t-tests and Bland-Altman analysis to evaluate continuous fluoride intake estimates. Cohen's kappa was used to assess agreement between categorical intake classifications, while descriptive statistics reported the percentage of children in each intake group.
Results: The questionnaire method estimated a higher mean TDFI (0.072 mg/kgbw/day) than the urine-based method (0.058 mg/kgbw/day, p = 0.01). Bland-Altman analysis showed good agreement for lower mean TDFI values (< 0.10 mg/kgbw/day) but increasing variability at higher fluoride intake levels. The questionnaire classified a larger proportion of children as high exposure (≥ 0.1 mg/kgbw/day) than the urine method (19.2% vs. 11.5%), with the greatest discrepancy observed in the fluoridated milk group (46.2% vs. 7.7%). Despite these classifications, Cohen's kappa revealed minimal agreement between methods (κ = 0.034, p = 0.508), suggesting that classification concordance was likely due to chance.
Conclusion: This first study comparing questionnaire and urinary methods for assessing TDFI in children found significant discrepancies and minimal agreement, especially in higher exposure groups, highlighting the risk of misclassification and the need for research into combined assessment approaches.
期刊介绍:
The aim of Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology is to serve as a forum for scientifically based information in community dentistry, with the intention of continually expanding the knowledge base in the field. The scope is therefore broad, ranging from original studies in epidemiology, behavioral sciences related to dentistry, and health services research through to methodological reports in program planning, implementation and evaluation. Reports dealing with people of all age groups are welcome.
The journal encourages manuscripts which present methodologically detailed scientific research findings from original data collection or analysis of existing databases. Preference is given to new findings. Confirmations of previous findings can be of value, but the journal seeks to avoid needless repetition. It also encourages thoughtful, provocative commentaries on subjects ranging from research methods to public policies. Purely descriptive reports are not encouraged, nor are behavioral science reports with only marginal application to dentistry.
The journal is published bimonthly.