Diet RecordsNCT03432962
Brand Level Nutrient Information Compared to Generic Food Codes
An observational study of Diet Records and Diet Surveys, run by University of Leeds at 1 site in United Kingdom.
Trial summary
Measuring diet is difficult. This is the first time that brand level foods and nutrient values have been compared with generic food codes to explore the difference this might make to estimated nutrient intakes. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any ageHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Diet Records, Diet Surveys
- How many people
- 61 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited Kingdom
- Study dates
- 1 Oct 2015to 5 May 2016
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages Any age
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Study population: In order to reach a broad range of individuals, adult participants from both the University of Leeds and from a convenience sample of members of the public, were invited to participate in the study via email.
Who may be able to join
- students University of Leeds
- convenience sample of general public
- adults
Who cannot join
- none defined
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United Kingdom1 site
Nutritional Epidemiology Group
Leeds, West Yorkshire, LS2 9JT
About this study
Official title: Brand Level Nutrient Information Compared to Generic Food Codes: Impact on Results From Dietary Recalls
Measuring diet is difficult. This is the first time that brand level foods and nutrient values have been compared with generic food codes to explore the difference this might make to estimated nutrient intakes.
Read the detailed description
Background Traditional dietary assessment methods lack precision. myfood24 is an online 24-hour dietary assessment tool, aiming to reduce the burden of dietary assessment; providing data entry by participants using automated coding of food items. myfood24 includes a large branded food database.
Objective To assess the effect of using brand level nutrient information compared to generic food codes on estimated nutrient intakes.
Design A 24 hour recall was collected using myfood24, which contains a food and nutrient database of over 40,000 items with both branded and generic foods. Participants freely selected their foods generating the 'free choice recall'. After the online recall was completed, they provided further details of brands consumed. The free choice recalls were recoded forming an 'all branded' and an 'all generic' recall. Estimated nutrient intakes from the three different methods of food coding were compared to assess the impact of brand-level information.
- Conditions
- Diet Records, Diet Surveys
- Being tested
- no intervention - recoding of food recall only
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
no intervention - recoding of food recall onlyOther
recoding of food recall
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Food code group | The participants freely selected foods from the online dietary assessment tool to record what they had eaten over the last 24h. They then provided information on brand details. The recalls were recoded to take into account all branded items and then recoded again to take represent all generic (ie. no brands) foods. Receives: Other: no intervention - recoding of food recall only |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Nutrient intakes by food coding
comparison of nutrient intakes as a result of the recoding process with brand level data
Measured: 24hour recall
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted14 Feb 2018
- Study start1 Oct 2015
- Primary completion5 May 2016
- Study completion5 May 2016
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Diet RecordsStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Other
- Time perspective
- Cross-sectional
- Enrolment
- 61 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Leeds
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- British Medical Research Council
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Janet Cade, University of Leeds
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03432962
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- NEG1
- Status last verified
- Feb 2018
- First submitted
- 18 Jan 2018
- Last updated
- 14 Feb 2018
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 14 Feb 2018. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Brand Level Nutrient Information Compared to Generic Food Codes: Impact on Results From Dietary Recalls
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03432962
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- NEG1
- Conditions
- Diet Records, Diet Surveys
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 61 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of LeedsUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- British Medical Research Council
- Study start
- 1 Oct 2015 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 5 May 2016 (actual)
- Study completion
- 5 May 2016 (actual)
- First posted
- 14 Feb 2018 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Measuring diet is difficult. This is the first time that brand level foods and nutrient values have been compared with generic food codes to explore the difference this might make to estimated nutrient intakes.
Detailed description
Background Traditional dietary assessment methods lack precision. myfood24 is an online 24-hour dietary assessment tool, aiming to reduce the burden of dietary assessment; providing data entry by participants using automated coding of food items. myfood24 includes a large branded food database.
Objective To assess the effect of using brand level nutrient information compared to generic food codes on estimated nutrient intakes.
Design A 24 hour recall was collected using myfood24, which contains a food and nutrient database of over 40,000 items with both branded and generic foods. Participants freely selected their foods generating the 'free choice recall'. After the online recall was completed, they provided further details of brands consumed. The free choice recalls were recoded forming an 'all branded' and an 'all generic' recall. Estimated nutrient intakes from the three different methods of food coding were compared to assess the impact of brand-level information.
Study design
- Observational model
- Other
- Time perspective
- Cross-sectional
- Number of arms
- 1
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Food code group | – | Other: no intervention - recoding of food recall onlyThe participants freely selected foods from the online dietary assessment tool to record what they had eaten over the last 24h. They then provided information on brand details. The recalls were recoded to take into account all branded items and then recoded again to take represent all generic (ie. no brands) foods. |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- In order to reach a broad range of individuals, adult participants from both the University of Leeds and from a convenience sample of members of the public, were invited to participate in the study via email.
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- students University of Leeds
- convenience sample of general public
- adults
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- none defined
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| no intervention - recoding of food recall onlyrecoding of food recall | Other | Food code group |
Primary outcome
Nutrient intakes by food coding
Time frame: 24hour recall
comparison of nutrient intakes as a result of the recoding process with brand level data
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 14 Feb 2018.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Diet Records
Active, not recruiting
A Personalized Approach to Abdominal Pain in Irritable Bowel Syndrome
Irritable Bowel Syndrome, Inflammatory Bowel Diseases
Recruiting
Capturing Food Intake in Patients Undergoing Radiation Therapy for Cancer
Cancer, Radiation Therapy
Recruiting
A Family-centred Approach Enhancing Cardiovascular Health in Ugandan Adolescents and Their Families
Adolescent Behavior, Lifestyle Modification
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Diet Records and Diet Surveys, run by University of Leeds at 1 site in United Kingdom.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 14 Feb 2018. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United Kingdom. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Nutrient intakes by food coding (time frame: 24hour recall). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 14 Feb 2018.