Skip to main content

Table 3 Inter-method agreement, limits of agreement (LOA) and correlation coefficient (r) between RFD app and 24 h dietary recalls (n = 50)

From: Feasibility of a commercial smartphone application for dietary assessment in epidemiological research and comparison with 24-h dietary recalls

 

Mean agreement (95% CI)

LOA

Correlation

Coefficient

(95% CI)

Energy intake (kJ/d)

−268 (−895, 358)a

−4699, 4162a

0.52 (0.28, 0.70)

Protein (% E)

0.4 (−0.4, 1.2)a

−5.5, 6.3a

0.79 (0.66, 0.88)

Total fat (% E)

−0.8 (−2.3, 0.7)a

−11.7, 10.1a

0.63 (0.43, 0.77)

Carbohydrate (% E)

−0.5 (−2.2, 1.1)a

−12.1, 11.0a

0.72 (0.56, 0.83)

Saturated fat (% E)

0.5 (−0.2, 1.2)a

−4.6, 5.5a

0.60 (0.39, 0.76)

Calcium density (mg/MJ)

5.9 (−4.0, 15.8)a

−64.4, 76.1a

0.45 (0.20, 0.65)

Iron density (mg/MJ)

0.05 (−0.08, 0.18)a

−0.89, 0.98a

0.42 (0.16, 0.62)

Polyunsaturated fat (% E)

100 (92, 108)b

57, 174b

0.64 (0.44, 0.78)c

Added sugar (% E)

110 (78, 140)b

13, 922b

0.68 (0.49, 0.80)c

Alcohol (% E)

47 (24, 92)b

0.4, 5266b

0.65 (0.46, 0.79)c

Dietary fibre density (g/MJ)

100 (93, 107)b

60, 167b

0.66 (0.46, 0.79)c

  1. aMean and LOA agreement based on raw data (absolute differences, original units): 4-d diary average (app) - average of two 24-h recalls
  2. bMean agreement and LOA based on log transformed data (relative differences, %): 4-d diary average (app): average of two 24-h recalls
  3. cSpearman’s rank correlation coefficient
Back to article page

Nutrition Journal

ISSN: 1475-2891

Contact us