Home › Research › Prevention trials
Evaluation of a dietary screener: the Mediterranean Eating Pattern for Americans tool
Cerwinske LA, Rasmussen HE, Lipson S, Volgman AS, Tangney CC.. Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association, 2017-02-07
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background Evidence exists for an association between accordance with a Mediterranean diet pattern and slower rates of cognitive decline. However, an 'Americanised' version of the Mediterranean diet screener is needed to assess accordance in the USA. Thus, the Mediterranean Eating Pattern for Americans (MEPA) tool was developed to assess accordance with a Mediterranean-like food pattern when time is limited. The present study aimed to determine whether the MEPA screener captured the key elements of the Mediterranean diet compared to the more comprehensive food frequency questionnaire (FFQ). Methods The study comprised a cross-sectional study in which 70 women completed both the VioScreen™ FFQ (Viocare, Princeton, NJ, USA) electronically and the 16-item MEPA screener, either electronically or by telephone, aiming to evaluate the inter-method reliability of the proposed screener. The convenience sample included patients (n = 49) and healthcare providers (n = 21) recruited from a tertiary care medical centre. Results The overall score from the MEPA screener correlated with corresponding overall MEPA FFQ score (ρ = 0.365, P = 0.002). Agreement between screener items and FFQ items was moderate-to-good for berries (κ = 0.47, P < 0.001), nuts (κ = 0.42, P < 0.001), fish (κ = 0.62, P < 0.001) and alcohol (κ = 0.64, P < 0.001), whereas those for olive oil (κ = 0.33, P = 0.001) and green leafy vegetables (κ = 0.36, P = 0.0021) were fair. Usual intakes of potassium, magnesium, vitamin C, saturated fat, selected carotenoids, folate and fibre derived from the FFQ varied with MEPA screener scores in the anticipated directions. Conclusions The MEPA screener captures several components of the Mediterranean style pattern, although further testing of the MEPA screener is indicated.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Cerwinske, L. A., Rasmussen, H. E., Lipson, S., Volgman, A. S., & Tangney, C. C. (2017). Evaluation of a dietary screener: the Mediterranean Eating Pattern for Americans tool. Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association. https://doi.org/10.1111/jhn.12451
Vancouver
Cerwinske LA, Rasmussen HE, Lipson S, Volgman AS, Tangney CC. Evaluation of a dietary screener: the Mediterranean Eating Pattern for Americans tool. Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association. 2017. doi:10.1111/jhn.12451. PMID: 28168764.
BibTeX
@article{cerwinske2017-28168764,
author = {Cerwinske, L. A. and Rasmussen, H. E. and Lipson, S. and Volgman, A. S. and Tangney, C. C.},
title = {{Evaluation of a dietary screener: the Mediterranean Eating Pattern for Americans tool}},
journal = {Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association},
year = {2017},
doi = {10.1111/jhn.12451},
pmid = {28168764},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/jhn.12451}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- The present study aimed to determine whether the MEPA screener captured the key elements of the Mediterranean diet compared to the more comprehensive food frequency questionnaire (FFQ).
- Results The overall score from the MEPA screener correlated with corresponding overall MEPA FFQ score (ρ = 0.365, P = 0.002).
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Study designcross-sectional
- Participants49
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 52/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for effect reported and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 30 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 52 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 4 / 12 | A snapshot of people at one point in time |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2017 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 49 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 28168764) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 30 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 30 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 52 out of 100. |
| Total | 52 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Prevention trials
Also in Prevention trials
86 studies in the library are filed under Prevention trials with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Prevention trials hub.