4.7 Article

Preliminary Validation of a Food Frequency Questionnaire to Assess Long-Chain Omega-3 Fatty Acid Intake in Eye Care Practice

期刊

NUTRIENTS
卷 11, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu11040817

关键词

omega-3; fatty acid; diet; dietary assessment; clinical survey; eye disease; dry eye; age-related macular degeneration; food frequency questionnaire; CODS

资金

  1. University of Melbourne-Melbourne Neuroscience Institute Interdisciplinary Seed Grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Clinical recommendations relating to dietary omega-3 essential fatty acids (EFAs) should consider an individual's baseline intake. The time, cost, and practicality constraints of current techniques for quantifying omega-3 levels limit the feasibility of applying these methods in some settings, such as eye care practice. This preliminary validation study, involving 40 adults, sought to assess the validity of a novel questionnaire, the Clinical Omega-3 Dietary Survey (CODS), for rapidly assessing long-chain omega-3 intake. Estimated dietary intakes of long-chain omega-3s from CODS correlated with the validated Dietary Questionnaire for Epidemiology Studies (DQES), Version 3.2, (Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia) and quantitative assays from dried blood spot (DBS) testing. The method of triads' model was used to estimate a validity coefficient () for the relationship between the CODS and an estimated true intake of long-chain omega-3 EFAs. The CODS had high validity for estimating the (95% Confidence Interval [CI]) for total long-chain omega-3 EFAs 0.77 (0.31-0.98), docosahexaenoic acid 0.86 (0.54-0.99) and docosapentaenoic acid 0.72 (0.14-0.97), and it had moderate validity for estimating eicosapentaenoic acid 0.57 (0.21-0.93). The total long-chain omega-3 EFAs estimated using the CODS correlated with the Omega-3 index (r = 0.37, p = 0.018) quantified using the DBS biomarker. The CODS is a novel tool that can be administered rapidly and easily, to estimate long-chain omega-3 sufficiency in clinical settings.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据