目的:比较估计食物的差异,能源,和营养素摄入量介于连续3天24小时饮食召回(24HR)(简称3天法)和连续2天24HR(简称2天法)之间,为我国营养监测采用连续2天24HR提供依据。
方法:使用客观抽样选择北部和南部省份的参与者,饮食数据是通过连续3天24HR获得的,和食物的平均摄入量,能量和营养计算为从周四到周六的三天和周五和周六的两天,分别。3天方法被认为是评估2天方法评估食物的性能的参考标准方法,能量和营养摄入量。
结果:在两个省的城市和农村地区的778名年龄在18-60岁的参与者中,与3天方法相比,用于估计四种主要食物类别摄入量的2天方法的平均值和中位数的误差小于6%,四类食物组存在显著的等效性(P>0.025),差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。在2天方法估计的24个食物组中,17的平均误差在5%以内,最大的误差是动物内脏(13.45%),最小的是水果(0.15%),七个食物组之间存在显着等效性(P&lt;0.025),而没有显着差异(P&gt;0.05)。为了能量和营养,能量的平均和中位误差小于0.5%,存在显著的等效性(P<0.025),能量无显著差异(P>0.05).在25种营养素中,除了钠,碘和维生素E,其他22种营养素的平均和中位数误差小于5%,16种营养素存在显著等效性(P>0.025),差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。
结论:两种调查方法在评估高消费频率食物的摄入量方面几乎没有差异,能量和大多数营养素在群体水平上,2日方法可作为3日方法的替代方法,用于收集人群高消费率的膳食摄入量数据.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the differences in estimated food,
energy, and nutrient intakes between the consecutive 3 days 24-hour dietary recall(24HR)(referred to as the 3-day method) and consecutive 2 days 24HR(referred to as the 2-day method) to provide a basis for the use of consecutive 2 days 24HR in
China nutrition surveillance.
METHODS: Using objective sampling to select participants in northern and southern provinces, dietary data were obtained through consecutive 3 days 24HR, and the average intakes of food, energy and nutrients were calculated for three days from Thursday to Saturday and two days on Friday and Saturday, respectively. The 3-day method was considered as the reference standard method to evaluate the performance of the 2-day method for estimating food,
energy and nutrient intakes.
RESULTS: Among 778 participants aged 18-60 years in urban and rural areas of two provinces, the errors of the mean and median of 2-day method for estimating the intake of four major food categories less than 6% compared with the 3-day method, and there were significant equivalencies(P<0.025) and no significant differences in four major food categories group(P>0.05). Of the 24 food groups estimated by the 2-day method, 17 had mean errors within 5%, the largest error was in animal offal(13.45%) and the smallest in fruit(0.15%), and there were significant equivalencies(P<0.025) and no significant differences in seven food groups(P>0.05). For
energy and nutrients, the mean and median errors of
energy were less than 0.5% and there were significant equivalencies(P<0.025) and no significant differences for
energy(P>0.05). Among the 25 nutrients, except sodium, iodine and vitamin E, the mean and median errors of the other 22 nutrients were less than 5%, and there were significant equivalencies(P<0.025) and no significant differences in 16 nutrients(P>0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: There was little difference between the two survey method in assessing the intake of high consumption frequency foods, energy and most nutrients at group level, the 2-day method can be used as an alternative to the 3-day method to collect dietary intake data with high consumption rates in the population.