For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
62
views
92
references
 Top references
cited by
27
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      417
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Perspective: An Extension of the STROBE Statement for Observational Studies in Nutritional Epidemiology (STROBE-nut): Explanation and Elaboration

      other

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Nutritional epidemiology is an inherently complex and multifaceted research area. Dietary intake is a complex exposure and is challenging to describe and assess, and links between diet, health, and disease are difficult to ascertain. Consequently, adequate reporting is necessary to facilitate comprehension, interpretation, and generalizability of results and conclusions. The STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement is an international and collaborative initiative aiming to enhance the quality of reporting of observational studies. We previously presented a checklist of 24 reporting recommendations for the field of nutritional epidemiology, called “the STROBE-nut.” The STROBE-nut is an extension of the general STROBE statement, intended to complement the STROBE recommendations to improve and standardize the reporting in nutritional epidemiology. The aim of the present article is to explain the rationale for, and elaborate on, the STROBE-nut recommendations to enhance the clarity and to facilitate the understanding of the guidelines. Examples from the published literature are used as illustrations, and references are provided for further reading.

          Related collections

          Most cited references92

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.

          J Bland, D Altman (1986)
          In clinical measurement comparison of a new measurement technique with an established one is often needed to see whether they agree sufficiently for the new to replace the old. Such investigations are often analysed inappropriately, notably by using correlation coefficients. The use of correlation is misleading. An alternative approach, based on graphical techniques and simple calculations, is described, together with the relation between this analysis and the assessment of repeatability.
          Article 0 comments Cited 2544 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Energy balance and its components: implications for body weight regulation.

            Kevin D. Hall, Steven B Heymsfield, Joseph W. Kemnitz … (2012)
            Article 0 comments Cited 215 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Application of a new statistical method to derive dietary patterns in nutritional epidemiology.

              Kurt Hoffmann, Matthias B. Schulze, Anja Schienkiewitz … (2004)
              Because foods are consumed in combination, it is difficult in observational studies to separate the effects of single foods on the development of diseases. A possible way to examine the combined effect of food intakes is to derive dietary patterns by using appropriate statistical methods. The objective of this study was to apply a new statistical method, reduced rank regression (RRR), that is more flexible and powerful than the classic principal component analysis. RRR can be used efficiently in nutritional epidemiology by choosing disease-specific response variables and determining combinations of food intake that explain as much response variation as possible. The authors applied RRR to extract dietary patterns from 49 food groups, specifying four diabetes-related nutrients and nutrient ratios as responses. Data were derived from a nested German case-control study within the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition-Potsdam study consisting of 193 cases with incident type 2 diabetes identified until 2001 and 385 controls. The four factors extracted by RRR explained 93.1% of response variation, whereas the first four factors obtained by principal component analysis accounted for only 41.9%. In contrast to principal component analysis and other methods, the new RRR method extracted a significant risk factor for diabetes.
              Article 0 comments Cited 213 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Adv Nutr
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Adv Nutr
                Journal ID (publisher-id): advances in nutrition
                Journal ID (hwp): advannut
                Title: Advances in Nutrition
                Publisher: American Society for Nutrition
                ISSN (Print): 2161-8313
                ISSN (Electronic): 2156-5376
                Publication date (Electronic): 7 September 2017
                Publication date Collection: September 2017
                Publication date PMC-release: 7 September 2017
                Volume: 8
                Issue: 5
                Pages: 652-678
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Food and Nutrition, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden;
                [2 ]Department of Food and Nutrition, and Sport Science, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden;
                [3 ]Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden;
                [4 ]Department of Clinical Sciences in Malmö, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden;
                [5 ]Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden;
                [6 ]Department of Food Safety and Food Quality, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium;
                [7 ]International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France;
                [8 ]Department of Biosciences and Food Sciences, University College Ghent, Ghent, Belgium;
                [9 ]Nutritional Epidemiology Group, School of Food Science and Nutrition, and
                [10 ]Biostatistics Unit, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; and
                [11 ]Department of Clinical Research and
                [12 ]Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
                Author notes
                Address correspondence to AH (e-mail: agneta.hornell@ 123456umu.se ).

                Perspective articles allow authors to take a position on a topic of current major importance or controversy in the field of nutrition. As such, these articles could include statements based on author opinions or point of view. Opinions expressed in Perspective articles are those of the author and are not attributable to the funder(s) or the sponsor(s) or the publisher, Editor, or Editorial Board of Advances in Nutrition. Individuals with different positions of the topic of a Perspective are invited to submit their comments in the form of a Perspectives article or in a Letter to the Editor.

                AH, CB, EF, C Larsson, ES, AÅ, and EW were supported by Forte grant 2013-0022 (Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare) through the Swedish Network in Epidemiology and Nutrition (NEON), for face-to-face meetings during the writing of the manuscript and part of the publication costs. C Lachat received a grant from the Research Foundation–Flanders (FWO; grant G0D4815N). DH is funded by a Faculty for the Future fellowship from the Schlumberger Foundation. JEC received funding from the Medical Research Council (grant MR/L02019X/1) for the related project, DIET@NET. This is an open access article distributed under the CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).

                Author disclosures: AH, CB, EF, C Larsson, ES, AÅ, C Lachat, DH, PK, GB, WDK, JVC, JEC, DCG, NS, MC, ME, IH, and EW, no conflicts of interest. JEC is Principal Investigator and DCG is Co-Investigator on a grant from the Medical Research Council (MR/L02019X/1) that is looking at ways to improve the quality of dietary assessment. MC acted as coordinator of the STROBE collaboration.

                Supplemental Reporting Table, Supplemental Examples, and Supplemental References are available from the “Online Supporting Material” link in the online posting of the article and from the same link in the online table of contents at http://advances.nutrition.org.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5464-5686
                Article
                Publisher ID: 015941
                DOI: 10.3945/an.117.015941
                PMC ID: 5593101
                PubMed ID: 28916567
                SO-VID: ccd34ca7-1884-48f8-a48a-aff04a63aac9
                License:

                This is an open access article distributed under the CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).

                History
                Date received : 11 April 2017
                Date revision received : 15 May 2017
                Date accepted : 13 July 2017
                Page count
                Pages: 27
                Categories
                Subject: Perspectives

                Keywords: dietary assessment,checklist,epidemiology,nutrition,reference standards,scientific reporting
                Data availability:
                Keywords: dietary assessment, checklist, epidemiology, nutrition, reference standards, scientific reporting

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content417

                See all similar

                Cited by27

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors1,920

                See all reference authors