From SNE

Abstract

Conventional methods of dietary assessment are prone to recall bias and place burden on participants.Our aim was to compare the performance of image-based dietary assessment (IBDA), including food photography (FP) and video recording (VR), with the criterion of weighed food records (WFR).In this comparative study, participants captured meals using FP and VR before and after consumption, over 2 days. Food type and portion size were assessed using the images and videos. Energy and nutrient intakes (mean of 2 days) were compared against WFR.Eighty-four healthy adults (mean [standard deviation] age = 29 [8] years), recruited through advertisement in Glasgow, UK, between January and August 2016 were enrolled in the study. Eighty participants (95%) (mean [standard deviation] age = 28 [7] years) completed the study and were included in the analysis.Agreement in estimated energy and nutrient intake between WFR and IBDA. The IBDA method feasibility was evaluated using a questionnaire. Inter-rater and intra-rater reliability were assessed.The performance of the IBDA methods against WFR and their inter and intra-rater reliability were tested with Bland-Altman plots and Spearman correlations. Intra-class agreement between methods was assessed using κ statistics.Inter-rater reliability was strong for both IBDA methods in estimating energy intake (ρ-coefficients: FP = 0.80; VR = 0.81). There was no difference in the agreement between the 2 assessors. Intra-rater reliability was high. FP and VR underestimated energy intake by a mean (95% agreement limits) of –13.3% (–56.4% and 29.7%) and –4.5% (–45.5% and 36.4%), respectively. IBDA demonstrated moderate-to-strong correlations in nutrient intake ranking, median ρ-coefficients for all nutrients: FP = 0.73 (interquartile range, 0.09) and VR = 0.82 (interquartile range, 0.02). Inter-class agreement of IBDA methods was moderate compared with the WFR in energy intake estimation. IBDA was more practical and enjoyable than WFR.IBDA and VR in particular demonstrated a moderate-to-strong ability to rank participants’ dietary intake, and considerable group and inter-class agreement compared with the WFR. However, IBDA was found to be unsuitable for assessment in individuals.