Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorAmoutzopoulos, Birdemen
dc.contributor.authorPage, Pollyen
dc.contributor.authorRoberts, Caireenen
dc.contributor.authorRoe, Marken
dc.contributor.authorCade, Janeten
dc.contributor.authorSteer, Tonien
dc.contributor.authorBaker, Rubyen
dc.contributor.authorHawes, Tabithaen
dc.contributor.authorGalloway, Catherineen
dc.contributor.authorYu, Doveen
dc.contributor.authorAlmiron-Roig, Evaen
dc.date.accessioned2019-12-12T00:32:06Z
dc.date.available2019-12-12T00:32:06Z
dc.date.issued2020-11en
dc.identifier.issn0029-6643
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/299769
dc.description.abstractContext: Over or under estimation of portion size leads to measurement error during dietary assessment. Objective: To identify portion size estimation elements (PSEEs) and evaluate their relative efficacy in relation to dietary assessment; and assess the quality of studies validating PSEEs. Data selection and extraction: Electronic databases, internet sites and cross-references of published records were searched, generating 16,801 initial records, from which 334 records were reviewed and 542 PSEEs were identified comprising: 5% one- dimensional (e.g. food guides), 46% two- dimensional (e.g. photographic atlases) and 49% three- dimensional tools (e.g. household utensils). Out of 334 studies, 21 validated a PSEE (compared PSEE to actual food amounts) and 13 compared PSEEs against other PSEEs. Conclusion: Quality assessment showed that only a few validation studies were of high quality. According to the findings of validation and comparison studies, food image-based PSEEs were more accurate compared to food models and household utensils. Key factors to consider when selecting a PSEE include efficiency of the PSEE and its applicability to targeted settings and populations.
dc.description.sponsorshipB.A., EAR, P.P. and C.R. were supported by the Medical Research Council programme number U105960384
dc.format.mediumPrinten
dc.languageengen
dc.publisherOxford University Press
dc.rightsAll rights reserved
dc.subjectHumansen
dc.subjectNutrition Assessmenten
dc.subjectEatingen
dc.subjectPortion Sizeen
dc.titlePortion size estimation in dietary assessment: a systematic review of existing tools, their strengths and limitations.en
dc.typeArticle
prism.endingPage900
prism.issueIdentifier11en
prism.publicationDate2020en
prism.publicationNameNutrition reviewsen
prism.startingPage885
prism.volume78en
dc.identifier.doi10.17863/CAM.46839
dcterms.dateAccepted2019-11-27en
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1093/nutrit/nuz107en
rioxxterms.versionAM
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserveden
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2020-11en
dc.identifier.eissn1753-4887
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen
pubs.funder-project-idCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (CUH) (146281)
cam.orpheus.successTue Mar 31 10:38:10 BST 2020 - Embargo updated*
cam.orpheus.counter2*
rioxxterms.freetoread.startdate2021-01-30


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record