Early View- Food Intake Recording Software System, version 4 (FIRSSt4): a self-completed 24-h dietary recall for children

Food Intake Recording Software System, version 4 (FIRSSt4): a self-completed 24-h dietary recall for children

T. Baranowski and colleagues

The Food Intake Recording Software System, version 4 (firsst4), is a web-based 24-h dietary recall (24 hdr) self-administered by children based on the Automated Self-Administered 24-h recall (ASA24) (a self-administered 24 hdr for adults). The food choices in firsst4 are abbreviated to include only those reported by children in US national surveys; and detailed food probe questions are simplified to exclude those that children could not be expected to answer (e.g. questions regarding food preparation and added fats). ASA24 and firsst4incorporate 10 000+ food images, with up to eight images per food, to assist in portion size estimation. We review the formative research conducted during the development of firsst4. When completed, firsst4 will be hosted and maintained for investigator use on the National Cancer Institute’s ASA24 website.

Early View- Reducing the cost of dietary assessment: Self-Completed Recall and Analysis of Nutrition for use with children (SCRAN24)

Reducing the cost of dietary assessment: Self-Completed Recall and Analysis of Nutrition for use with children (SCRAN24)

E. Foster, A. Hawkins, J. Delve, A.J. Adamson

Background

Self-Completed Recall and Analysis of Nutrition (scran24) is a prototype computerised 24-h recall system for use with 11–16 year olds. It is based on the Multiple Pass 24-h Recall method and includes prompts and checks throughout the system for forgotten food items.

Methods and results

The development of scran24 was informed by an extensive literature review, a series of focus groups and usability testing. The first stage of the recall is a quick list where the user is asked to input all the foods and drinks they remember consuming the previous day. The quick list is structured into meals and snacks. Once the quick list is complete, additional information is collected on each food to determine food type and to obtain an estimate of portion size using digital images of food. Foods are located within the system using a free text search, which is linked to the information entered into the quick list. A time is assigned to each eating occasion using drag and drop onto a timeline. The system prompts the user if no foods or drinks have been consumed within a 3-h time frame, or if fewer than three drinks have been consumed throughout the day. The food composition code and weight (g) of all items selected are automatically allocated and stored. Nutritional information can be generated automatically via the scran24 companion Access database.

Conclusions

scran24 was very well received by young people and was relatively quick to complete. The accuracy and precision was close to that of similar computer-based systems currently used in dietary studies.

Keywords- don’t neglect them!

Following on from consideration of the value of a good title for a paper, it is perhaps appropriate to also think about keywords. Keywords… those four or five tricky words and phrases that authors are asked to add to their manuscript. Those four or five words and phrases that are invariably the last thing to be written. Those four or five words that invariably get no consideration at all. What are they for?

Keywords are an important tool to help search engines find relevant papers. Ultimately it was probably a keywords search on Google that led you to this page. If database search engines can make use of appropriate keywords to find your journal manuscript, then your intended readers will be able to find it too. The knock-on effect is that a greater audience will be able to access your work, your citations and influence upon your field will also increase.

Keywords serve another function at an earlier stage of the publications process. As journal editors we often depend on those keywords to find appropriate expert reviewers for your paper. Sadly, the lack of care and attention given to their selection often means that the editorial job is made that much harder. Careful selection of keywords should generate words that a) represent the content of your manuscript and b) are specific enough to be relevant to your sub-field. For JHND for example, having nutrition or dietetics is of no use whatsoever. They are not specific enough and all JHND papers could have them as keywords. Similarly obesity is not hugely helpful as our database has more than 500 reviewers who list obesity as an area of interest.

Let’s take a look at a title for a paper and consider the choice of keywords:

Quantifying photographic dietary records: the effect of a portion size estimation aid on measurement error in a dietary survey. 

Keywords:

Dietetics, Portion Size, Dietary Assessment, Dietetics

OK, so Dietetics is something I have already commented on. It is not helpful to the journal editor, nor does it really help anyone searching for papers like this. The paper isn’t really about dietetics, it is about measurement error in dietary survey. Also, why has the author listed it twice? More care and attention! Don’t leave it until the last moment!

Portion size- that seems to be a good choice. It is what the paper is about and is something that readers may search for.

Dietary assessment- again, not a bad choice as it does give an indication of what the paper is about. 

However, neither dietary assessment nor portion size really convey the scope of this paper. My choice of keywords would be more focused on what the paper is about, which is measurement error in assessment and the use of photographic records. A better set of keywords would also draw out issues that are not obvious in the title:

Dietary assessment

Measurement error

Photographic diet record

Portion size

Under-reporting

Food atlas

 

These things are well worth paying attention to, so give it more than 20 seconds thought next time you submit an article.

What’s in a title?

Yesterday we had a meeting of the senior editorial board for JHND (and a very enjoyable and useful process it was) and amongst our discussions was a conversation about the titles that authors give to their papers. The general conclusion was that most authors give too little consideration to what they call their work and this can either result in it being perceived as low interest by the editor, or if published, can lead to low take-up by the potential readership.

 

What can authors do to make this part of their paper more effective?

Well, first of all appreciate how important the title actually is. A good title should tell the reader everything he or she needs to know about the contents of the paper in as few words as possible.  First and foremost consider whether you need to state what kind of paper you have written. Is is a review? Is it a systematic review? Often these are sought out be readers who want to capture the overview of a topic, so by stating in your title you draw your work to their attention. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between dietary intake of soy isoflavones and fracture risk in post-menopausal women for example leaves no doubt about the content of the paper. Similarly, Vitamin D and bone health: A review conveys so much more than just Vitamin D and bone health.

Often it is useful to get the true subject of the paper early in the title. For example The problems  associated with the use of home enteral feeding in children is a less effective title than Home enteral feeding: problems associated with use in children. The reader scanning through lists of search results on PubMed or similar engines will pick up the paper more quickly if Home enteral feeding is the start of the title.

Whilst incorporating detail into a title is important for conveying the subject matter to potential readers and attracting their attention, too much detail can be a turn off for both readers and editors. Take this example, The effect of omega 3 fatty acid consumption upon circulating lipids, blood pressure and carotid intima thickness in Norwegian fishermen. That is quite a mouthful and doesn’t grab attention for a number of reasons. 

1. It is just too long. Why not combine circulating lipids, blood pressure and carotid intima thickness into “cardiovascular risk”? Someone doing a search is far more likely to pick it up on that basis.

2. This could be an excellent paper, with great methodology and useful results, but the fact it is in Norwegian fishermen puts me off a bit. Does it matter that they are Norwegian, or that they fish? Is the lipid metabolism of Norwegian fishermen any different to Swedish, Danish or Australian fishermen? Are fishermen a high risk group for CVD? No.

So, a  more attractive title for the paper would be Dietary omega 3 fatty acids and cardiovascular risk, plus something that gives some indication of what the study was:

Dietary omega 3 fatty acids and cardiovascular risk: a randomised controlled trial

Dietary omega 3 fatty acids and cardiovascular risk: a cross-sectional study

The key point is that the title, and of course the abstract, are vital selling points for your paper. Get them right and the editor is more likely to send a manuscript for review and if published more people will read and cite the paper.

Early view- Plate size does not affect perception of food portion size

Plate size does not affect perception of food portion size

Penaforte and colleagues.

Background

Evidences have suggested that larger utensils may provoke ‘size-contrast illusions’, influencing the perceived volume and food consumption.

Objective

To analyse the influence of plate size on the visual estimate of food portion size.

Methods

Two 400 g portions of pasta with tomato sauce were presented on two plates of different diameters (24.0 and 9.0 cm). Each participant visually estimated on an individual basis the quantities of the pasta portions (g) present on each plate. In addition, each subject classified the size of the portions on each plate as ‘small’, ‘medium’ and ‘large’. The mean estimates of the amount of pasta on each plate were compared by the nonparametric Mann–Whitney. The differences in the frequencies of portion classifications between plates were evaluated by the chi-squared test.

Results

Forty-eight students (average 25.8 ± 8.9 years) participated in the study. There was no difference in the median amount of pasta estimated for the large and small plates (150 g; range 50–500 and 115 g; range 40–500 g, respectively). The classification of the portion size as ‘large’ was reported by a significantly greater number of persons when they evaluated the amount of pasta arranged on the large plate compared to the small plate (47.9 versus 22.9%, respectively; P = 0.018).

Conclusion

The size of the plate did not influence the estimate of food portions, even though it did influence the classification of portion size.

Early View- Accuracy and preference of measuring resting energy expenditure using a handheld calorimeter in healthy adults

Accuracy and preference of measuring resting energy expenditure using a handheld calorimeter in healthy adults

A Madden, LJF Parker, F Amirabdollahian

Background

Accurate estimates of energy expenditure are required in clinical nutrition in order to determine the requirements of individuals and to inform feeding regimes. Calorimetry can provide accurate measurements but is often impractical in clinical or community settings; prediction equations are widely used to estimate resting energy expenditure (REE) but have limited accuracy. A portable, self-calibrating, handheld calorimeter (HHC) may offer an alternative way of determining REE. The aim of the study was to evaluate whether estimates of REE derived using an HHC are closer to accurate measurements than values calculated using selected prediction equations.

Methods

REE was measured in 36 healthy adults aged 21–58 years using a flow-through indirect calorimeter (FIC) and HHC. Estimated REE was calculated using three predictive equations (Harris & Benedict; Schofield; Henry). Differences in REE between the ‘gold standard’ values derived using the FIC and those derived using the HHC and equations were examined using paired t-tests and Bland Altman plots.

Results

Mean REE_HHC was significantly lower than mean REE_FIC [4556 ± 1042 kJ (1089 ± 249 kcal) versus 6230 ± 895 kJ (1489 ± 214 kcal),P = 0.000] and also significantly lower than mean values calculated using all three equations. The mean difference between REE_HHC and REE_FIC [1674 ± 908 kJ (400 ± 217 kcal)] was significantly greater (P = 0.000) than the mean differences between the values calculated using the three prediction equations [272 ± 490 kJ (65 ± 117 kcal) (Harris-Benedict), 264 ± 510 kJ (63 ± 122 kcal) (Schofield), 84 ± 502 kJ (20 ± 120 kcal) (Henry)].

Conclusions

The HHC provides estimates of REE in healthy people that are less accurate than those calculated using the prediction equations and so does not provide a useful alternative.

Early view- A comparison of general practitioners prescribing of gluten-free foods for the treatment of coeliac disease with national prescribing guidelines

A comparison of general practitioners prescribing of gluten-free foods for the treatment of coeliac disease with national prescribing guidelines

U Martin and SW Mercer

Background

Coeliac disease is an autoimmune disorder that is considered to affect approximately one in 100 people. In the UK, gluten-free (GF) foods can be prescribed by general practitioners (GPs) to treat this condition and there are national guidelines on the quantities of GF food an individual should receive on prescription. Information on actual prescribing behaviour by GPs, and how this compares with guideline recommendations, is scarce. The present study aimed to describe GPs prescribing practice of GF foods, within one locality in the UK, comparing this with national guidelines.

Methods

A retrospective evaluation of GP electronic medical records for all patients with a gluten-sensitive enteropathy diagnosis and/or those prescribed GF food between April 2010 and March 2011 was carried out in 16 GP practices in the west of Scotland, serving a total of 85 667 patients.

Results

Of 175 (0.18% of the total practice population) patients, 152 were identified with coeliac disease, eight with dermatitis herpetiformis and six with both conditions. A further nine patients received GF foods on prescriptions with no recorded diagnosis. There was a positive association between adherence to the prescribing guidelines and female sex (P < 0.0001) and (for those with a recorded diagnosis) increasing age (P = 0.001). There was no significant association between either socio-economic deprivation or co-morbidities and adherence to the prescribing guidelines.

Conclusions

There was significant under prescribing of GF foods in those identified. Further research is required to establish whether these results are representative of wider practice in the UK.