Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T13:34:21.393Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of a bar-code system for nutrient analysis in dietary surveys

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2007

Annie S Anderson ,
Linda Maher ,
Tom K Ha ,
Josephine Cooney ,
Susan Eley ,
Marilyn Martin ,
Giacomo Vespasiani ,
Mauro Bruni  and
Michael EJ Lean
Annie S Anderson*
Affiliation:
Centre for Applied Nutrition Research, University of Dundee, Dundee DD1 4HT, UK
Linda Maher
Affiliation:
Department of Human Nutrition, University of Glasgow, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow G31 2ER, UK
Tom K Ha
Affiliation:
Department of Human Nutrition, University of Glasgow, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow G31 2ER, UK
Josephine Cooney
Affiliation:
Institute of Biochemistry, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow G31 2ER, UK
Susan Eley
Affiliation:
Department of Human Nutrition, University of Glasgow, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow G31 2ER, UK
Marilyn Martin
Affiliation:
Department of Human Nutrition, University of Glasgow, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow G31 2ER, UK
Giacomo Vespasiani
Affiliation:
Medimatica, San Benedetto del Tronto, Italy
Mauro Bruni
Affiliation:
Medimatica, San Benedetto del Tronto, Italy
Michael EJ Lean
Affiliation:
Department of Human Nutrition, University of Glasgow, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow G31 2ER, UK
*
*Corresponding author: Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Objective:

A novel system for nutrient analysis has been developed and tested over 5 years. Its key features are a nutrient database of 600 commonly eaten foods (95% of foods eaten in 7-day surveys); a booklet identifying each food with a bar code, bar codes for gram weight and for portion sizes (small, medium, large) and a bar-code reader with dietary analysis software for PCs. In the present study the bar-code system has been evaluated by comparison with a commonly used manual entry nutrient analysis software for dietitians' use.

Design:

Cross-sectional.

Setting:

Glasgow city district.

Subjects:

One hundred and sixty adults aged 18–65 years old.

Results:

Comparing mean intakes for macro- and micronutrients, using the Bland and Altman method1, the bias between the two methods was small, ranging from 0.93 to 1.03. The bar-code system took significantly less professional time in data entry and nutrient analysis than the widely used manual system (29 min per 7-day diary vs. 47 min per 7-day diary, P < 0.001).

Conclusions:

It is suggested that the bar-code system offers greater speed with a saving of professional time needed for nutrient analysis of dietary surveys. This system is commended for maintaining accuracy while promoting economy.

Keywords

Dietary intakesNutrient analysis
Type
Research Article
Information
Public Health Nutrition , Volume 2 , Issue 4 , April 1999 , pp. 579 - 586
Copyright
Copyright © CABI Publishing 1999

References

1: Bland, JM, Altman, DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1: 307–10.Google Scholar
2: Margetts, B, Nelson, M. Design Concepts in Nutritional Epidemiology. Oxford: Oxford Medical Publications, 1991.Google Scholar
3: Anderson, AS, Lean, MEJ, Vespasiani, G, Bruni, M, Martin, M. Foodmeter (UK) 2: a practical method of assessing dietary intake for patients with diabetes. Practical Diabetes 1993; 18(6): 234–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4: Holland, B, Welch, AA, Unwin, ID, Buss, DH, Paul, AA, Southgate, DAT. McCance and Widdowson's The Composition of Foods, 5th edn.Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, 1991.Google Scholar
5: Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Food Portion Sizes, 2nd edn.London: HMSO, 1994.Google Scholar
6: Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. National Food Survey 1994. London: HMSO, 1996.Google Scholar
7: Eddington, J, Thorogood, M, Geekie, M, Ball, M, Mann, J. Assessment of nutritional intake using dietary records with estimated weights. J. Hum. Nutr. Diet. 1989; 61: 407–14.Google Scholar
8: Talwar, D, Cooney, J, O'Reilly, D StJ. Simultaneous determination of vitamins A and E and carotenoids in plasma by reversed phase HPLC. In: Proceedings of the Association of Clinical Biochemists National Meeting 88, 1995.Google Scholar
9: Gregory, J, Foster, K, Tyler, H, Wiseman, M. The Dietary and Nutritional Survey of British Adults. London: HMSO, 1990.Google Scholar
10: Di Mascio, P, Kaiser, S, Sies, H. Lycopene as the most efficient biological carotenoid single oxygen quencher. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 1989; 274: 532–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11: Thurnham, DI. Impact of disease on markers of micronutrient status. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 1996; 56: 421–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12: Scott, KJ, Thurnham, DI, Hart, DJ, Bingham, SA, Day, K. The correlations between the intake of lutein, lycopene and beta-carotene from vegetables and fruits, and blood plasma concentrations in a group of women aged 50–65 years in the UK. Br. J. Nutr. 1996; 75: 409–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13: Office of Population Censuses and Surveys and the Employment Department Group. OPCS Standard Occupational Classification. London: HMSO, 1990.Google Scholar