70 [high fat diet]) was negligible (kappa statistic = 0.036). The MF was accurate at the extremes of fat intake, but could not reliably identify the 3 AHA dietary classifications. Alternative MF cutpoints of <30 (Step 2), 30–50 (Step 1), and >50 (high fat diet) were highly sensitive (96%), but had low specificity (46%) for a high fat diet. ROC curve analysis identified that a MF score cutoff of 38 provided optimal sensitivity 75% and specificity 72%, and had modest agreement (kappa = 0.39, P < 0.001) with the FFQ for the identification of subjects with a high fat diet. The MEDFICTS questionnaire is most suitable as a tool to identify high fat diets, rather than discriminate AHA Step 1 and Step 2 diets. Currently recommended MEDFICTS cutpoints are too high, leading to overestimation of dietary quality. A cutpoint of 38 appears to be providing optimal identification of patients who do not meet AHA dietary guidelines for fat intake."/> Skip to content


Nutrition Journal

Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Validation of the MEDFICTS dietary questionnaire: A clinical tool to assess adherence to American Heart Association dietary fat intake guidelines

  • Allen J Taylor1Email author,
  • Henry Wong4,
  • Karen Wish3,
  • Jon Carrow4,
  • Debulon Bell4,
  • Jody Bindeman4,
  • Tammy Watkins4,
  • Trudy Lehmann4,
  • Saroj Bhattarai4 and
  • Patrick G O'Malley2
Nutrition Journal20032:4


Received: 28 October 2002

Accepted: 13 June 2003

Published: 13 June 2003

Back to article

Open Peer Review reports

Pre-publication versions of this article and author comments to reviewers are available by contacting info@biomedcentral.com.

Original Submission
28 Oct 2002 Submitted Original manuscript
11 Mar 2003 Author responded Author comments - Allen Taylor
Resubmission - Version 2
11 Mar 2003 Submitted Manuscript version 2
13 Jun 2003 Editorially accepted
13 Jun 2003 Article published 10.1186/1475-2891-2-4

How does Open Peer Review work?

Open peer review is a system where authors know who the reviewers are, and the reviewers know who the authors are. If the manuscript is accepted, the named reviewer reports are published alongside the article. Pre-publication versions of the article and author comments to reviewers are available by contacting info@biomedcentral.com. All previous versions of the manuscript and all author responses to the reviewers are also available.

You can find further information about the peer review system here.

Authors’ Affiliations

Cardiology Service, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, USA
Dwight D. Eisenhower Army Medical Center, Ft. Gordon, USA
General Internal Medicine Service, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, USA
Systems Assessment & Research, Inc., Lanham, USA