This is a repository copy of A systematic review of reviews identifying UK validated dietary assessment tools for inclusion on an interactive guided website for researchers: www.nutritools.org. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/159658/ Version: Published Version Article: Hooson (Jzh), J., Hutchinson (Jyh), J., Warthon-Medina, M. et al. (21 more authors) (2020) A systematic review of reviews identifying UK validated dietary assessment tools for inclusion on an interactive guided website for researchers: www.nutritools.org. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 60 (8). pp. 1265-1289. ISSN 1040-8398 https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2019.1566207 Reuse This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence. This licence allows you to distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon the work, even commercially, as long as you credit the authors for the original work. More information and the full terms of the licence here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition ISSN: 1040-8398 (Print) 1549-7852 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/bfsn20 A systematic review of reviews identifying UK validated dietary assessment tools for inclusion on an interactive guided website for researchers: www.nutritools.org Jozef Hooson (Jzh), Jayne Hutchinson (Jyh), Marisol Warthon-Medina, Neil Hancock, Katharine Greathead, Bethany Knowles, Elisa Vargas-Garcia, Lauren E. Gibson, Linda A. Bush, Barrie Margetts, Sian Robinson, Andy Ness, Nisreen A. Alwan, Petra A. Wark, Mark Roe, Paul Finglas, Toni Steer, Polly Page, Laura Johnson, Katharine Roberts, Birdem Amoutzopoulos, Victoria J. Burley, Darren C. Greenwood & Janet E. Cadeon behalf of the DIET@NET consortium To cite this article: Jozef Hooson (Jzh), Jayne Hutchinson (Jyh), Marisol Warthon-Medina, Neil Hancock, Katharine Greathead, Bethany Knowles, Elisa Vargas-Garcia, Lauren E. Gibson, Linda A. Bush, Barrie Margetts, Sian Robinson, Andy Ness, Nisreen A. Alwan, Petra A. Wark, Mark Roe, Paul Finglas, Toni Steer, Polly Page, Laura Johnson, Katharine Roberts, Birdem Amoutzopoulos, Victoria J. Burley, Darren C. Greenwood & Janet E. Cadeon behalf of the DIET@NET consortium (2020) A systematic review of reviews identifying UK validated dietary assessment tools for inclusion on an interactive guided website for researchers: www.nutritools.org, Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 60:8, 1265-1289, DOI: 10.1080/10408398.2019.1566207 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2019.1566207 © 2019 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC View supplementary material Published online: 18 Mar 2019. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 3290 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 1 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=bfsn20 CRITICAL REVIEWS IN FOOD SCIENCE AND NUTRITION 2020, VOL. 60, NO. 8, 1265–1289 https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2019.1566207 REVIEW A systematic review of reviews identifying UK validated dietary assessment tools for inclusion on an interactive guided website for researchers: www.nutritools.org Jozef Hooson (JZH)a, Jayne Hutchinson (JYH)a , Marisol Warthon-Medinaa,b , Neil Hancocka, Katharine Greatheada, Bethany Knowlesa, Elisa Vargas-Garciaa , Lauren E. Gibsona, Linda A. Busha, Barrie Margettsc, Sian Robinsond,e, Andy Nessf, Nisreen A. Alwanf,g, Petra A. Warkh,i, Mark Roeb,j, Paul Finglasb, Toni Steerk, Polly Pagek, Laura Johnsonl, Katharine Robertsm,n, Birdem Amoutzopoulosk, Victoria J. Burleya, Darren C. Greenwoodo, and Janet E. Cadea ; on behalf of the DIET@NET consortium aNutritional Epidemiology Group, School of Food Science and Nutrition, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK; bFood Databanks National Capability, Quadram Institute Bioscience, Norwich, UK; cFaculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK; dMRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK; eNIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton & University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK; fNIHR Biomedical Research Unit in Nutrition, Diet and Lifestyle, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; gAcademic Unit of Primary Care and Population Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, UK; hCentre for Innovative Research Across the Life Course (CIRAL), Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Coventry University, Coventry, UK; iGlobal eHealth Unit, Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK; jEuroFIR AISBL, Brussels, Belgium; kMRC Elsie Widdowson Laboratory, Cambridge, UK; lCentre for Exercise, Nutrition and Health Sciences, School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; mPublic Health Section, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK; nPublic Health England, London, UK; oFaculty of Medicine and Health Division of Biostatistics, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK ABSTRACT KEYWORDS Background: Health researchers may struggle to choose suitable validated dietary assessment Validation studies; Diet tools (DATs) for their target population. The aim of this review was to identify and collate informa- records; Systematic Review; tion on validated UK DATs and validation studies for inclusion on a website to support researchers Study Characteristics; Dietary Assessment; Limits to choose appropriate DATs. of Agreement Design: A systematic review of reviews of DATs was undertaken. DATs validated in UK populations were extracted from the studies identified. A searchable website was designed to display these data. Additionally, mean differences and limits of agreement between test and comparison meth- ods were summarized by a method, weighting by sample size. Results: Over 900 validation results covering 5 life stages, 18 nutrients, 6 dietary assessment meth- ods, and 9 validation method types were extracted from 63 validated DATs which were identified from 68 reviews. These were incorporated into www.nutritools.org. Limits of agreement were determined for about half of validations. Thirty four DATs were FFQs. Only 17 DATs were validated against biomarkers, and only 19 DATs were validated in infant/children/adolescents. Conclusions: The interactive www.nutritools.org website holds extensive validation data identified from this review and can be used to guide researchers to critically compare and choose a suitable DAT for their research question, leading to improvement of nutritional epidemiology research. Introduction measurement of dietary intake, both at an individual and population level, is challenging due to measurement difficul- Diets high in energy dense and nutrient-poor foods have ties, low participation rates, and degree of compliance, with been linked to an increased risk of chronic diseases such as no single method being identified as the best approach for obesity, cardiovascular disease, and particular cancers (Rollo population studies (Shim, Oh, and Kim 2014). et al. 2016). Measuring dietary intake accurately is, therefore, Dietary measurement has relied on self-reported dietary essential in establishing relationships between food con- assessment tools (DATs) such as food frequency question- sumption patterns and non-communicable diseases (Serra- naires (FFQs), 24-hour recalls, and weighed/estimated food Majem et al. 2009); or when evaluating the effectiveness of diaries (WFD, EFD) (Johnson 2002; Long et al. 2010). public health policies and interventions (Mouratidou et al. However, these methods are prone to selective 2012; Øverby, Serra-Majem, and Andersen 2009). Accurate CONTACT Janet E. Cade [email protected] Nutritional Epidemiology Group, School of Food Science and Nutrition, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here. ß 2019 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 1266 J. HOOSON (JZH) ET AL. Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria applied to the reviews and DATs. Reviews DATs Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria Reviews that validated a DAT Reviews that exclusively eval- Tools validated in a UK population DATs measuring eating disor- against a biomarker or another uated tools assessing inadequacy Be able to measure dietary intake ders, food preferences, feeding self-reported tool against energy, of diets in terms of malnutrition Validation results can be entered practices or inadequacy of diets macro or micro nutrients or Commentaries, editorials or on the nutritools website Lifestyle based tools (e.g. diet food groups other opinion articles plus physical activity) Reviews published since 1st DATS measuring the purchasing January 2000