Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 11, 2026
'Boden Food Plate': Novel Interactive Web-based Method for the Assessment of Dietary Intake
Published on: September 18, 2018
Accuracy of energy and nutrient intake estimation versus observed intake using 4 technology-assisted dietary
Clare Whitton1, Clare E Collins2, Barbara A Mullan3
1Curtin School of Population Health, Curtin University, Kent Street, GPO Box U1987, Perth 6845, WA, Australia; Curtin Health Innovation Research Institute, Curtin University, Kent Street, GPO Box U1987, Perth 6845, Australia; School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, 270 Joondalup Drive, Joondalup WA 6027, Australia.
Background:
Technology-assisted 24-h dietary recalls (24HRs) have been widely adopted in population nutrition surveillance. Evaluations of 24HRs inform improvements, but direct comparisons of 24HR methods for accuracy in reference to a measure of true intake are rarely undertaken in a single study population.
Objectives:
To compare the accuracy of energy and nutrient intake estimation of 4 technology-assisted dietary assessment methods relative to true intake across breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
Methods:
In a controlled feeding study with a crossover design, 152 participants [55% women; mean age 32 y, standard deviation (SD) 11; mean body mass index 26 kg/m2, SD 5] were randomized to 1 of 3 separate feeding days to consume breakfast, lunch, and dinner, with unobtrusive weighing of foods and beverages consumed. Participants undertook a 24HR the following day [Automated Self-Administered Dietary Assessment Tool-Australia (ASA24); Intake24-Australia; mobile Food Record-Trained Analyst (mFR-TA); or Image-Assisted Interviewer-Administered 24-hour recall (IA-24HR)]. When assigned to IA-24HR, participants referred to images captured of their meals using the mobile Food Record (mFR) app. True and estimated energy and nutrient intakes were compared, and differences among methods were assessed using linear mixed models.
Results:
The mean difference between true and estimated energy intake as a percentage of true intake was 5.4% (95% CI: 0.6, 10.2%) using ASA24, 1.7% (95% CI: -2.9, 6.3%) using Intake24, 1.3% (95% CI: -1.1, 3.8%) using mFR-TA, and 15.0% (95% CI: 11.6, 18.3%) using IA-24HR. The variances of estimated and true energy intakes were statistically significantly different for all methods (P < 0.01) except Intake24 (P = 0.1). Differential accuracy in nutrient estimation was present among the methods.
Conclusions:
Under controlled conditions, Intake24, ASA24, and mFR-TA estimated average energy and nutrient intakes with reasonable validity, but intake distributions were estimated accurately by Intake24 only (energy and protein). This study may inform considerations regarding instruments of choice in future population surveillance. This trial was registered at Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry as ACTRN12621000209897.
Related Concept Videos
01:27Bioavailability Study Design: Absolute Versus Relative Bioavailability
01:15Bioavailability Study Design: Healthy Subjects Versus Patients
01:30Measurement of Bioavailability: Pharmacokinetic Methods
01:20Measurement of Bioavailability: Pharmacodynamic Methods